Environmental Gestalt Influences Pertine

EDITORIAL
First of all, I would like to thank the outgoing Editor Dr David Vernon for
his tireless dedication to the journal, and his support that is ongoing to myself
and the current editorial team. I hope that I can continue his high standards.
I would like to introduce the new editorial team, myself Dr Malcolm
Schofield as the new Editor, Dr Zofia Weaver as the Associate Editor and
Dr Tammy Dempster continues as the Editorial Assistant. It is our intention
as a team to keep to the rigorous high standard of the JSPR and continue to
publish engaging, both theoretically and empirically, articles that will
continue to keep the field of parapsychology open and investigate experiences
that challenge current scientific principles.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 2020

Vol. 84, No. 2, 65–92,
www.spr.ac.uk
ENVIRONMENTAL “GESTALT INFLUENCES” PERTINENT TO

STUDIES OF HAUNTED HOUSES
Michael a. Jawer, Brandon Massullo, Brian laythe & JaMes houran
ABSTRACT
Fieldwork studies of “haunted houses” can offer ecologically valid insights for
model-building or theory-formation in consciousness studies from parapsycho-
logical and conventional perspectives. The interactionist hypothesis asserts
that these anomalous episodes are a phenomenon rooted in environment-
person bidirectional influences. Although prior research has examined the role
of various physical factors in some haunt cases, relatively recent findings in
environmental psychology suggest the potential involvement of six “Gestalt
influences” that transcend discrete variables as conscious — or unconscious
— stimulants of witness experiences. These meta-patterns in the psychology
of spaces or settings involve: (i) affordance, (ii) atmosphere, (iii) ambiguity and
threat anticipatory processes, (iv) immersion and presence, (v) legibility, and
(vi) percipient memory and associations. Thus, haunted houses might be
variants of “enchanted spaces or extraordinary architectural experiences.”
New research designs are thus recommended to scrutinise the presence and
impact of Gestalt influences and enactive processes in parapsychological
contexts.
introduction
“Haunted house” is a catchphrase for at least two types of ostensibly
anomalous episodes, which we define in this paper from a phenomenological
perspective (Houran et al., 2019a, 2019b; Lange & Houran, 2001a). Poltergeist
65
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 2020, 84(2)
disturbances can be described in this context as clusters of unusual

“psychological experiences” (e.g., apparitions, sensed presences, hearing
voices, and unusual somatic or emotional manifestations) and “physical
events” (e.g., apparent object movements, malfunctioning electrical or
mechanical equipment, and inexplicable percussive sounds like raps or
knocks), that seemingly focus around the presence of certain people (for a
psychological discussion, see Ventola et al., 2019). Similar psychological and
physical anomalies that tend to persist at specific locations are called haunts
or hauntings (Gauld & Cornell, 1979/2017; Roll & Persinger, 2001).
We emphasise that the haunted house moniker does not distinguish
deliberately cultivated experiences of a religious, spiritual, or occult nature,
e.g., hermeticism, spiritualism, or shamanism (Hunter, 2018). However,
some of these activities are certainly situated within the periphery of our
main topic (Houran, 2004). We refer readers to Laythe, Laythe, and Woodward
(2017) for an experimental example in this respect, and Houran et al. (2019b)
for similarities and differences in haunt narratives as a function of being
spontaneous versus facilitated in nature.
Furthermore, parapsychologists typically differentiate haunts and
poltergeists (e.g., Gauld & Cornell, 1979/2017; Roll & Persinger, 2001) or
suggest they involve a constellation of different phenomena (Cardeña, Lynn,
& Krippner, 2014; Houran & Lange, 1996). We argue, however, that a firm
distinction is problematic due to their overlapping characteristics (Houran et
al., 2019a; Ventola et al., 2019, pp. 145 –146) and shared set of psychological
and physical anomalies that form a unidimensional and probabilistic
hierarchy (Houran et al., 2019b; Houran & Lange, 2001). Thus, a common
phenomenon or set of mechanisms might underlie both types of episodes.
At the very least, haunted houses appear to be an interactionist pheno-
menon involving “the right people in the right settings” (Laythe, Houran, &
Ventola, 2018, p. 210). This view derives from systems theory, i.e., environment-
person bidirectional influences (Goldhagen, 2017; Rentfrow, 2013) or what
some authorities call enactive processes (Jelić et al., 2016). Indeed, many
studies hint that environmental factors contribute to the underlying
mechanism(s) in haunt-type cases. Mounting evidence suggests that: (i) the
perception or report of haunt-type experiences is related, in part, to vigilance
or sensitivities to internal or external stimuli (Jawer, 2006; Laythe et al., 2018;
Parra, 2018); (ii) the contents of experiences often appear congruent with cues
in the attending physical or psychosocial environment (Caputo, 2014; Harte,
2000; Houran, 2000); and (iii) patterns of the inter-event times, or the temporal
periods between successive anomalous experiences, strongly imply the role of
perceptual or attentional biases and “contagion” effects in some reports (Lange
& Houran, 2001a, 2001b; Laythe et al., 2017; cf. van Elk, 2015).
Therefore, beyond strictly parapsychological interpretations of haunted
houses (e.g., Maher, 2015; Roll & Persinger, 2001), their study seems instructive
for exploring or refining important issues in consciousness studies that span
model-building or theory-formation across the social and biomedical sciences.
These implications touch on evolutionary perspectives on attentional or
perceptual abilities, cognitive-affective factors in the interpretation of
ambiguous stimuli, causes and consequences of “sick building syndrome” and
66
Environmental “Gestalt Influences” Pertinent to Studies of Haunted Houses
mass (contagious) psychogenic illness, as well as more recently introduced

constructs such as embodied-cognition (Goldhagen, 2017), place attachment
and identity (Donohoe, 2014; Seamon, 2014), extraordinary architectural
experiences (Bermudez, 2009; Bermudez & Ro, 2018), and hierotopy, i.e., the
study of so-called sacred or enchanted spaces (e.g., Holloway, 2010; Lidov, 2006).
This conceptual paper thus calls for a broader approach that transcends
simplistic studies of discrete physical factors that have typified fieldwork in
this domain. Instead, relatively recent research and thinking in evolutionary-
environmental psychology has identified several “Gestalt influences” that are
especially pertinent to the phenomenon of haunted houses. This term, as
used here, refers to ambient, structural, or contextual variables that define
or mediate a person’s cognitive-affective “impression formation” of specific
spaces and settings. Based on our review of this burgeoning literature, we
outline and discuss six such influences. We further argue that fieldwork
studies in parapsychology and anomalistic psychology should carefully
consider these variables as part of new and innovative research designs.
haunted houses as environMental science
Environmental studies of haunted houses have often adopted two basic
approaches. First, there are variables that can capture attention and be
interpreted as “ghostly.” Tandy and Lawrence (1998) provided a nice summary
of these mostly conscious stimulants that included: “…water hammer in
pipes and radiators (noises), electrical faults (fires, phone calls, video
problems), structural faults (draughts, cold spots, damp spots, noises),
seismic activity (object movement/destruction, noises), electromagnetic
anomalies (hallucinations), and exotic organic phenomena (rats scratching,
beetles ticking)” (p. 360). Interestingly, these authors also reported that
standing airwaves could elicit sensory experiences suggestive of ghosts — a
conventional cause not documented previously. Overviews and discussions of
these and other naturalistic explanations are readily available (e.g., Houran,
1997; Houran & Lange, 1996, 1998; Nickell, 2001).
Second, the literature references stimuli that can be unwittingly perceived
or potentially instigate unusual experiences, i.e., unconscious (or non-
conscious) stimulants. Pertinent to anomalistic psychology, for instance, an
object within an individual’s line of sight but never mentioned can serve as
an embedded cue or indirect suggestion for highly responsive hypnotic
subjects (Erickson & Rossi, 1979, 1981; Erickson, Rossi, & Rossi, 1976). More
generally, the extensive body of research on peripheral cues to persuasion
show obvious effects on belief and attitudes as a function of background and
environmental information (Petty, Brinol, & Priester, 2009; Petty & Cacioppo,
1986, 1990). Other researchers have likewise proposed these types of
embedded or “peripheral” cues in the environment as sources for the contents
of some haunt-related narratives (Harte, 2000; Houran, 2000).
Nevertheless, expansive literature in evolutionary-environmental
psychology goes well beyond these two sets of perceptual stimulants or
mediators. By way of explanation, environmental psychology is the scientific
study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their
surroundings, including manufactured, social, natural, and virtual
67
environments. Considerable evidence in this domain indicates that some

ambient environmental conditions or physical variables can influence human
sensory, attentional, or perceptual systems in unexpected or marked ways.
For example, light-emitting diodes (LED) seem to support positive mood,
extended wakefulness, and speeded performance in workplace settings
(Hawes et al., 2012), whereas exposure to a specific colour called “Baker-
Miller Pink” ostensibly reduces human hyper-excitability and aggression,
even in colour-blind and some blind individuals (Schauss, 1985).
These types of effects exemplify the concepts of evidence-based art and
design. Early pioneering works (Cochrane, 1972; Ulrich, 1984) launched this
growing research area in concert with the patient-centred care movement
that began in the United States in 1978. For instance, Ulrich (1984) observed
that surgical patients with windows overlooking natural scenes had shorter
hospital stints and took fewer analgesic painkillers than patients in rooms
with windows facing the brick walls of a neighbouring building. Related
applications of environmental psychology (sometimes called environmental
psychophysiology) have become increasingly popular in wellness — and
hospitality-settings derive from the premise that “the physical environment
is not a mere backdrop for healthcare delivery — it is an integral part of the
healthcare experience” (Hathorn & Nanda, 2008, p. 1).
Clinical studies in this context have also found that the incorporation of
visual arts and aesthetic design can enhance both patient wellness and staff
efficiency by increasing positive feelings and reflective curiosity, which
collectively result in patients’ spiritual and therapeutic wellness (for a review,
see Hathorn, 2012). Businesses that design or manage stores or community
spaces have similarly studied and applied so-called biophilic design to
capitalise on the hypothesised tendency for people innately to seek out
connections with nature or naturalistic features (Wilson, 1984).
Sometimes witnesses in ghostly episodes have likewise referenced positive
emotions, sensations, or perceptions (e.g., Houran, 2002; Houran et al.,
2019b) especially when anomalies occur in the comforting or adaptive context
of spontaneous or facilitated “after-death communications” (Cooper, 2010,
2013; Steffen & Coyle, 2012) or within settings appreciated as sacred or
enchanted spaces (Bermudez & Ro, 2018; Holloway, 2010; Lidov, 2006). But
often something to the contrary occurs in putative haunts. Based on our
various field investigations and spontaneous case reviews, we instead find
that specific buildings, locations, areas, or settings consistently stoke witness
perceptions or reactions that range in tone from “quite surprising” to
“somewhat unsettling” to “downright ominous.”
It is easy to assume that such environments possess a stereotypical
spookiness or creepiness (McAndrew, 2015, 2020). However, fieldwork studies
suggest there are important nuances or interactions between human psychology
and the overt or covert environmental cues or variables potentially at play.
Some studies (for a review, see Maher, 1999), for instance, have found that
specific areas in haunted houses where witnesses recurrently report anomalous
experiences tend not to be those areas that independent raters perceive as
having the “spookiest” ambience. On this point, the fields of neuroscience and
architecture are actively investigating how built environments likewise
68
influence perception. Undoubtedly, elements of a building or space exert an

underlying influence, as noted by architect Peter Zumthor (2006), “I enter a
building, see a room and — in the fraction of a second — have this feeling about
it” (p. 13). Experimental evidence supports this premise that certain cognitive-
affective responses derive from discrete characteristics of built environments
or controlled settings. Illustratively, low ceiling height and low natural light
can trigger stress (Aoun, 2015), as can open spaces (Fich, 2016). Higher ceiling
height is more likely to elicit free and abstract thoughts, whereas low ceiling
height tends to prompt thoughts to be focused on specific objects in a room
(Meyers-Levy & Zhu, 2007; Zoura, 2018). Even insipid built features can cause
individuals to become stressed (Urist, 2016), although more interesting or
appealing settings are known to elicit feelings of peace and contemplation
(Sternberg, 2009). Moreover, environmental psychologists have also discussed
meta-patterns of spaces or settings that foster more holistic or Gestalt
perceptions or reactions in certain experients. Such impressions become
complicated, as the very nature of “the whole being greater than the sum of its
parts” (for a brief review, see Werthiemer, 1938) inherently detracts from the
scientific analysis of individual features of themes if these architectural themes
are truly “Gestalt.” Nevertheless, and as the current work shows, detailed
environmental analysis of “haunted locations” from spatial or visual
perspectives are generally lacking. Hence, we assert that these Gestalt
influences are conceptually germane to the topic of haunted houses and that a
working knowledge of these patterns will bolster the validity and
comprehensiveness of future fieldwork investigations.
environMental “Gestalt influences”
Considerable evidence shows that environmental and architectural
experience and meaning can be predicted to an extent by the collective
features of physical settings. Here, people’s sensory, perceptual, and
attentional mechanisms interact to produce holistic interpretations of
certain natural or built environments. We describe these effects as “Gestalt
influences,” and the environmental psychology literature contains six
examples that appear particularly germane to the concept of haunted houses.
1) Affordance
Academic attention has increasingly focused on the concept of affordance.
This is defined as “a possibility for action” provided by the environment or,
alternatively, the relation possible between the environment and its percipient
(Gibson, 1986; Jelić et al., 2016). A chair, for example, affords sitting. Neither
the chair nor the person sitting is the affordance; they share the affordance,
i.e., the possibility of sitting. Similarly, a door affords the possibility of passing
through, while a staircase affords the possibility of ascending or descending
(Pallasmaa, 2011). Within this framework, the “atmosphere” or “potential” of
a space (based on whatever elements are contained in or define the space) can
be considered an affordance for a feeling arising in a percipient (C. Ellard,
personal communication to M.A.J., July 15, 2019).
Affordance, as defined here, reiterates the powerful influence of both
perceived meaning and action in architectural spaces that is reminiscent of
69
the phenomenology of Heidegger (1927/1996) in the sense that the person

and object engage in an interaction of meaning. Simply put, something as
commonplace as a creaky door must first be tangibly present in order for a
percipient to see it move in a purportedly mysterious way. Subsequently,
however, the beliefs or meaning associated with the location or object figure
heavily in the interaction. It is also worth noting that “spooky” objects or
features within settings not only contribute to affordance but embed meaning
in the type of feelings experienced in allegedly haunted spaces. This is by no
means a revelation, as “hauntrepeneur” sites purposefully decorate locations
for this specific effect (Laythe & Houran, 2019). Similarly, rooms designed for
séances (cf. Laythe et al., 2017) using objects with cultural associations to
hauntings (e.g., Ouija boards, electromagnetic field meters, children’s dolls,
or flashlights) are not only expected to generate moods and expectancies, but
they also likely encourage paranormal interpretations by acting as embedded
or peripheral cues for most lay people.
2) Atmosphere
Atmosphere can be defined as “a state of resonance and identification
(sensorimotor, emotive, and cognitive) between an individual and the
surrounding built space.” Architectural features such as form, proportions,
rhythm, materials, light and shade, temperature, and sounds are generators
of atmosphere, such that feelings will be elicited in human percipients “when
they interiorly establish an embodied simulation” of those features (Canepa
et al., 2018, p. 27). To this catalogue of elements can be added colours,
textures, smells, and movement. These “induce the brain to react, generating
a specific emotional state” (de Paiva, 2018).
Taking sound as an example, old buildings full of rotting wood, exposed
ductwork, and other structural defects can produce infrasound and create
the possibility of a “spooky” experience for the percipient (Kerr, 2015;
McAndrew, 2020). As studies in neuroscience, architecture, and environmental
psychology progress in illuminating the impact of space and built features on
perception and emotion, it becomes ever more clear that the spaces that
surround us, shelter us, and provide us with a place to work, relax, and grow
are more than structures. To this point, Winston Churchill memorably
observed, “We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”
(UK Parliament, 2020).
In all cases, the sense of being in a set of surroundings is built on automatic,
pre-conscious processing. Input from the senses (including the proprioceptive
and vestibular senses) serves to continuously update one’s neural
representation of the body’s configuration and posture, its position and
movement in space, and the possibilities for action in that space (Gallese &
Corrado 2010; Jelić et al., 2016). Indeed, it is argued broadly that our very
sense of self arises from and is reinforced by continuous interaction with the
external environment (Legrand, 2006).
3) Reactions to Ambiguity
A parallel hypothesis concerning how feelings arise from built
environments relates to the role of a percipient’s anticipatory processes, i.e.,
70
a kind of risk assessment performed unconsciously in order to make sense of

the immediate environment, and hence, a process that might engender a
physiological stress reaction, or, alternatively, feelings of comfort and ease
(Jelić & Fich, 2018). This pre-conscious risk assessment can be seen most
clearly in the case of reportedly haunted locations. According to McAndrew
(2020, para 38), “From a psychological point of view, the standard features of
haunted houses creep us out because they exploit evolved psychological
mechanisms that warn us of potential danger and motivate us to proceed
with caution.”
McAndrew and Koehnke’s (2016) Threat Ambiguity Theory asserts that
the sense of “creepiness” is a response to the ambiguity of threat. Certain
people, for example, present us with an ambiguity as to whether they are to
be feared. This ambiguity generates discomfort, which leads to those
individuals being labelled as creepy. Applied to the present context, “Houses
that send signals of being haunted give us the creeps not because they pose a
clear threat to us, but rather because it is unclear whether or not they
represent a threat (McAndrew, 2020, para 39, emphasis original). It is this
ambivalence which leaves one “frozen in place, wallowing in unease”
(McAndrew & Koehnke, 2016; p. 11).
The reason threat ambiguity elicits such an emotional response is traced
to the agent detection mechanisms referenced by evolutionary psychologists
(Atran, 2002; Barrett, 2005), e.g.:
Agent detection mechanisms are processes that have evolved to protect us from
harm at the hands of predators and enemies. If you’re walking through the woods
alone at night and hear the sound of something rustling in the bushes, you will
respond with a heightened level of arousal and attention. You will behave as if there
is a willful “agent” present who is about to do you harm. If it turns out to be a gust of
wind or a stray cat, you lose little by overreacting. But if you fail to activate the alarm
response and a true threat is present — well, the cost of your miscalculation could be
high. Thus, we evolved to err on the side of detecting threats in ambiguous situations
(McAndrew, 2020, p. 6).
Our agency detection system is undoubtedly operating in locations with
ambiguous stimuli such as drafts, cold spots, rattling and creaking noises,
echoes, etc. The resulting feeling of unease or fear can easily lead to specific
settings or places being labelled as “haunted” just as a person would be
labelled as “creepy.” The presence of life-like dolls, sombre portraits of
individuals long dead, heirlooms and other such objects can increase the
perceived creepiness of a space (McAndrew, 2015, 2020). The converse also
appears to be true, with creepiness affecting the perception of ambient
temperature. In one study, individuals who felt “creeped out” felt colder
themselves and believed that the room temperature had dropped when, in
fact, it had not (Leander, Chartrand & Bargh, 2012; Rodriquez-McRobbie,
2015).
Ambiguity and uncertainty have been frequently linked to anomalous
experiences, and ghostly episodes specifically, in the literature (see e.g.,
Houran & Williams, 1998; Lange & Houran, 2001a). Experients in such
circumstances may try to exert control; this unconscious process can result in
their seeing or attributing patterns or agency where none exist. In other
71
words, when individuals are unable to gain a sense of control (physical or

psychological) objectively, they will often try to gain it perceptually (Lange &
Houran, 2000; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Hungry people, for instance, are
more likely to perceive food in ambiguous images (Levine, Chein, & Murphy,
1942), while children of lower economic status tend to overestimate the size
of coins (Bruner & Goodman, 1947).
In locations whose features generate uncertainty or apprehension,
percipients may seek a feeling of control via illusory pattern perception or
ideological-driven interpretations of ambiguous stimuli. Here the ambiguous
subsequently becomes the anomalous. That is, individuals who claim to live
in a haunted location may perceive or interpret certain patterns that amount
to a “ghost” in order to ease the uncertainly of ambiguous stimuli (psychological
or physical) encountered there. This anxiety relieving process may typify
what is happening in any purportedly haunted locale (Lange & Houran,
2001a; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). For example, Lange and Houran’s (1998,
1999) path analyses empirically modelled paranormal belief and experience
in haunt-related contexts as fundamentally adaptive, non-pathological
“delusion-like” ideations (for overviews, see Houran & Williams, 1998; Lange
& Houran, 2001a). These beliefs, in the absence of clear or convincing
orthodox explanations, give people a sense of relief or control when confronting
stressful or ambiguous stimuli.
Lange and Houran’s anxiety-relief (anxiolytic) model, however, pointed up
important nuances. Paranormal beliefs appeared to reduce low-to-mild fears
and anxieties associated with facing ambiguous stimuli, thereby creating a
negative (self-correcting) feedback loop (Lange & Houran, 1998). Yet, this
strategy was less effective when people were already highly anxious or
fearful. In these instances, paranormal ideations instead increased fear, thus
creating a positive (self-reinforcing) feedback loop (Lange & Houran, 1999).
Taken together, these findings suggest that people face a basic choice
between fear of an unknown and an esoteric explanation for an unknown. The
results of advanced nonlinear analyses that used this juxtaposition as the
dependent variable supported this hypothesis (Lange & Houran, 2000). Still,
tolerance of ambiguity is probably not the sole psychological variable mediating
cognitive-affective mechanisms linked to Anxiolytic or Threat Ambiguity
Theory. O’Keeffe et al. (2019) proposed, for instance, that agency detection
might also be affected by an experient’s aberrant salience or the proximity of
the ambiguous/anomalous stimuli relative to the experient’s personal space.
Finally, note that Anxiolytic and/or Threat Ambiguity Theory emphasises
intolerance of ambiguity. But Lange and Houran (1998, 1999) found that a
marked tolerance of ambiguity also correlated with paranormal interpretations
for ambiguous stimuli. This observation might imply that such individuals
regard “ghostly” phenomena with curiosity, amusement, or enchantment.
Rather than inducing fear or anxiety in those with a high tolerance of
ambiguity, anomalous experiences might inspire feelings of admiration, awe,
or wonder — akin to the experiences of some artists (Zausner, 1998). In this
manner, ambiguity and the related potential for psychological arousal may
help to explain previous research associating sensation-seekers with
paranormal belief (for a review, see Irwin, 2009).
72
4) Immersion and presence

The constancy of human beings’ unconscious threat detection system can
be demonstrated even in virtual environments. In several experiments, the
degree to which the virtual space seemed real — and posed a threat (e.g., by
offering no ready refuge) — generated stress as measured by heart rate, skin
conductance, and skin temperature (Meehan et al., 2002, 2005). Interestingly,
in the virtual reality literature, the term presence occurs often. It refers to
the degree of immersion in the virtual environment, i.e., the extent to which
the percipient believes herself or himself to be physically present in that
environment (Draper, Kaber, & Usher, 1998).
Presence can be gauged by the individual’s psychophysiological and
neurophysiological responses, including, of course, behaviour. While there is
no overt connection in the anomalistic psychological or parapsychological
literature concerning presence, the reference and concept are worth exploring.
Given that a higher level of presence is associated with greater activation of
feelings (Riva et al., 2007), it seems possible that psi influences — more
virtual than real — could evoke feelings and behavioural changes as well.
The concept of presence as immersion is germane to social science and
particularly parapsychological studies. The standard for persuasion research,
the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM: Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), separates
persuasive content into “central” (direct and attenuated information) versus
“peripheral” (indirect or contextual information) where the strongest
persuasive effect is determined by the personal relevance or salience of both
forms of stimulus (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty, Brinol, & Priester, 2009).
Further, Self-Categorization Theory (SCT: Turner et al., 1987) empirically
demonstrates the role of environmentally salient cues in whichever identity
one uses for any given interaction. SCT emphasises “normative fit,” whereby
individuals cognitively assess environmental, social, and visual cues to
determine the group they wish to belong — a process that inevitably relates
to schema formation and stereotypes (Haslam et al. 1995; Oakes, Turner, &
Haslam, 1991).
Although not often operationalised, the immersion (i.e., focus or attention)
of a psi experiment participant or field researcher would be expected to affect
significantly their perceptions (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Attention-detracting
and attention-attracting environments could readily influence perception,
and thus the results or observations. However, such environmental effects
were notably absent in a cursory examination of the methodology sections in
the Handbook of Parapsychology (Cardeña, Palmer, & Marcussion-Clavertz,
2015). We might posit, therefore, that the level of “presence” in a given space
is likely to affect what people observe and how they react there.
5) Legibility and the Lens of “Para-Design”

Environmental or architectural features that can cause a location to be
perceived as attractive or frightening are related, in part, to the qualities of
physical space called prospect and refuge (Appleton, 1975; McAndrew, 2020).
Appealing locations offer prospect (clear, unobstructed views) and refuge
(protective places to hide); locations with little or no prospect and refuge are
73
perceived as unappealing, unsafe, or even dangerous (Fisher & Nasar, 1992;

McAndrew, 2020).
Purportedly haunted locations might also tend to lack what environmental
psychologists refer to as legibility, i.e., the ease with which a place can be
recognised, organised into a pattern, and then recalled. A place with high
legibility is one in which individuals can wander around without becoming
lost (McAndrew, 1993), whereas “…the typical Hollywood haunted house is
our worst nightmare, as it makes fleeing difficult. The darkness and confusing
layout of the house may cause us to get lost; at the very least, it would slow
us down” (McAndrew, 2020, p. 12). Spatial features such as corners and
recesses, low or narrowing ceilings, and other irregularities make such
places perceptually challenging and, subsequently, disquieting (Drinkwater,
Cocchiarella, & Dagnall, 2019).
Besides affording a low degree of legibility, allegedly haunted places are
often older buildings with period furnishings that convey a sense of habitation
or presence, even if long gone. Personal belongings or mementoes associated
with the individuals who lived there can transmit an even more immediate
sense of presence (Drinkwater, Cocchiarella, & Dagnall, 2019). Furthermore,
these older structures are places where terrible things are said to have
happened, with the implication that some “residue” of the events remains.
Such narratives can be personally compelling (Eaton, 2018) and socially
engaging (Hill et al., 2018, 2019). These structures “…place us on our highest
alert, and when combined with hazards that have threatened humans from
the dawn of time, will creep us out every time” (McAndrew, 2020, p. 30).
Given the many factors contributing to percipients’ discomfort in “spooky”
built environments, it is noteworthy that the term para-design has been
coined for the aim of making “general lived space more comfortable by
acknowledging features that may give rise to unpleasant feelings and
sensations” (Drinkwater, Cocchiarella, & Dagnall, 2019, p. 1). Para-design
seeks to comprehend ghostly perceptions through the lens of the built
environment — and alleviate such discomfort through appropriate design
modifications. This fresh tactic differs markedly from religio-cultural
“cleansing” rituals that are occasionally used as invention strategies for
haunted houses (see e.g., Roll, 1977; Tilley, 2002).
6) Percipient memory and associations

One additional element deserves mention as affecting perception of place
— memory. Consider the instance of a woman who went into her bathroom at
work and was immediately reminded of her high school biology class. The
culprit was a trace smell of formaldehyde, a glue used in the bathroom’s
cabinetry (Greenwood, 2019). Anthropologists Ember and Ember (1988)
advanced a similar accounting for ghosts:
There are many cues in everyday experience that are associated with a loved one,
and even after…death those cues might arouse the feeling that the dead person is
still somehow present. The opening of a door, the smell of tobacco or cologne in a
room, may evoke the idea that the person is still present, if only for a moment. Then,
too, loved ones live on in dreams. Small wonder, then, that most societies believe in
ghosts (p. 420).
74
These examples illustrate that memory is thoroughly embodied, reflecting

our experience in certain places and at particular times — especially if these
locations and times have personal meaning (Rich, 2012). Individuals may
clearly be misled in the present by a sensation or feeling relating to an earlier
experience. Of course, from a parapsychological perspective, it is fair to
question whether someone else’s earlier experience could be conveyed in a
specific space via its built features and affordances of feeling.
Bell (1997) has pointed out that, in a more prosaic way, “places are
personed” — we can gain a sense of the individuals who frequented particular
locations even when they are no longer physically present (nor even alive any
longer). Language is interesting here since common parlance ascribes a place
that is or was intimately connected with a given person as his or her “haunt.”
Bell argues that the term “ghost” is apt to describe this sense of presence
(although he does not subscribe to a literal belief in ghosts). For Bell, ghosts
— “that is, the sense of the presence of those who are not physically there
— are a ubiquitous aspect of the phenomenology of place.” They are “a felt
presence…that possesses and gives a sense of social aliveness to a place”
(Bell, 1997).
In this manner, what he terms ghosts are “spirits of temporal transcendence,
of connection between past and future.” When a person rearranges the
furniture he or she has inherited in a given home or office, or installs new
lighting or flooring, or gives away the older items in that space, that person
is effectively ‘exorcising’ the space, dismissing the ghosts of previous
occupants and imbuing the space with a new ghost — one’s own (Bell, 1997).
Ultimately, says Bell, given that each place has “quirky singularities” and
hosts a unique cast of characters, its atmosphere or character is bound to be
unique. Ghosts, therefore, “have good reason to haunt the specific places they
do” (Bell, 1997, p. 831).
iMplications for Model-BuildinG and theory-forMation
Potential refinements to current thinking
Our review offers a new prism with which to re-examine and possibly
reinterpret previous studies that have implicated anomalous “localised” or
ambient factors operating in haunted houses. That is, Gestalt influences
might help to contextualise or explain results from various fieldwork studies
using Gertrude Schmeidler’s (1966) quantitative “floorplan” approach.
Specifically, she innovated a method whereby experimentally blind
“sensitives” (self-described psychics) and later control groups (Maher &
Schmeidler, 1975; Moss & Schmeidler, 1968) visited reportedly haunted sites
and marked floorplans where they perceived anomalous phenomena.
Significant associations were obtained between the areas marked by the
sensitives and the areas indicated by previous witnesses. Additional studies
using this methodology have reported similar correspondence effects (Houran,
2002; Maher, 2000; Maher & Hansen, 1992, 1995; Wiseman et al., 2002; for a
meta-analysis see: Maher, 1999 and for counterpoints on meta-analytic
techniques, see: Houran, Lange, & Hooper, 2018).
Table 1 outlines key methodological details of published studies using the
floorplan approach. It becomes clear that while this literature often reports
75
taBle 1
Methodological features of studies using the “floorplan” approach in haunted house studies.
Ambient
Architectural Witnesses: Research Participants:
Instruction environ–
Study environmental psychological psychological Findings
Set mental
variables characteristics characteristics
variables
Adjective checklist for
describing impressions Location chart
of “ghost” divided by 326 4x4
Two “sensitives” marked
Standardized units noted with
significant locations. Four
Schmeidler instructions for None “occasionally (n = 9) self-designated
None measured sensitives’ checklists
(1966) touring with measured haunted” and “Sensitives”
significantly matched
directions. “frequently
76
witness descriptions
Experimenter haunted” areas by
instructions for witness accounts
handling tours
Instructed to describe
personality of ghost
with adjective
checklist, A list to Three of six sensitives
describe verbs which (n = 6) self designated showed significant
Moss & Location chart
represent “ghosts” None “Sensitives” and (n = 8) correspondence to witness
Schmeidler defined as “a rough None measured
activity, and list measured self designated accounts. One sceptic
(1968) floor plan”
devised to describe “Controls” (of 8) showed suggestive
“ghost’s” appearance. correspondence
Also instructed to
indicate where “ghost”
was located
To “report where a
Incomplete
“ghost” would Location chart
Alpha and Sentence form,
probably be seen in (without cues) to Nominal designation: Two sensitives reported
Maher & beta Composite of
the apartment and indicate presence Psychic (n = 4) or significant findings
Schmeidler radiation, House-Tree-
what the of where two Sensitive and Sceptic between checklist and
(1975) Infrared Person and
characteristics of such apparitional (n = 8) layout
photography Draw-a-Person

a purported “ghost” sightings occurred
tests
would be”
Guided tour where
participants given
blueprints and “to Architectural floor Four sensitives
Nominal Designation:
place an X at the RNG tests plans, notated as House-Tree- significantly related
Maher & Psychic/Sensitive (n = 4)
corresponding place by location, apparition location Person test, details of witnesses. Both
Hansen and Sceptics (n = 4) notes
on the floor plan for Infrared (n = 13) or absence Draw-a-Person sceptics and sensitives
(1992) issues with classification
any site where they photography of apparition test significant on floorplan
in discussion
saw, felt, or otherwise (n = 130) test
sensed the presence of
a ghost or ghosts”
77
Individual and collective

sensitive reports showed
significant similarity to
Guided tour where RNG test Floor plan set (n = 3) nominally defined
witness reports. Sceptics
participants given device, provided with House-Tree- “Sensitives”, and (n =3)
Maher & were not significantly
blueprints and to Infrared areas noted for Person test, sceptics. House-Tree-
Hansen associated with the
“place an X at any site photography, anomalous Draw-a-Person Picture and Draw-a-
(1995) above. One video
where they sensed or video phenomena by test Person tests applied
recording anomaly,
experienced a “ghost” recording previous witnesses
photograph anomaly
explained by conventional
means
Magnetic
Floor plan set
fields, Nominally defined
provided with One sensitive reported
Guided tour, with Infrared “Sensitives” (n = 3) and
Maher areas noted for Participants significant floor plan
written instructions photography, “Sceptics” (n = 3) House.
(2000) anomalous only locations, with suggestive
for checklist test Audio and Tree Person Tests
phenomena by checklist items
video administered. “blind”
previous witnesses
recording
Ambient
Architectural Witnesses: Research Participants:
Instruction environ–
Study environmental psychological psychological Findings
Set mental
variables characteristics characteristics
variables
Demographics,
You will spend Phenomena expectation,
approximately ten Prior location knowledge,
minutes alone in each Cognitions about body
Each area Number and modality of
of ten different areas Ten test areas, and health, Screening for
assessed for anomalous experiences
in this mansion. While three with somatization symptoms.,
Houran artwork, significantly related to
you are in each room, anomalous Participants Revised Transliminality
(2002) temperature, paranormal belief.
you are asked to phenomena by only (n = 20) Scale, Synesthesia,
humidity, Expectation of haunting
complete a history Hyperesthesia, Whiteley
and number significantly related to
questionnaire about Index, Anxiety
of air vents experiences reported
any unusual Sensitivity Index,
experiences you have Revised Paranormal
Belief Scale, Haunt
Experiences Checklist
78
Significantly more reports

Controlled and quasi
Air temperature, of unusual experiences in
blind guiding of
Wiseman air movement, “haunted” areas.
participants randomly Prior location knowledge
et al. interior lighting Participants Experiences correlated
to assigned locations. EMF questionnaire, Unusual
(2003) levels, (inside and only with environmental
Pre and post experiences
out) room area and measurements (light,
questionnaires
height room size, and ceiling
administered
height)
Carbon
Haunted site showed
monoxide,
Photographs taken at Lighting levels, significantly lower temp.
Terhune, Lighting
control and “haunted” spatial dimensions, and humidity. Higher
Ventola, & levels, Participants Revised Paranormal
site rated on 1–4 scale no. of mirrors, no incidence of photographic
Houran magnetic only Belief Scale
by 8 vetted of pictures, anomalies demonstrated
(2007) fields,
photographers windows, air vents in active area of haunted
temperature,
locations
humidity
intriguing associations between areas where prior witnesses and independent

raters reported anomalous experiences, there are also many critical
inconsistencies or gaps across the procedures and measurements: (i) the
instruction sets for research participants, and hence the matching attentional
or perceptual exercises, often varied substantially across studies; (ii) no
psychometric studies were conducted of prior witnesses in the respective cases
to estimate their receptivity to environmental variables or Gestalt influences
possibly operating in their spontaneous experiences; (iii) authors often
categorized their research participants using nominal versus standardized
(psychometric) criteria; with only 22% of the studies using psychometric
measures that might estimate participants’ receptivity to environmental
variables or Gestalt influences; (iv) about 56% of these studies measured some
type of discrete environmental variables, and (v) only 33% of these studies
apparently measured, to an extent, elements relevant to Gestalt-type effects.
Given that the psychological characteristics of participants were not
controlled for, and environmental cues were not uniformly operationalised,
alternative hypotheses for the floorplan findings must be explored.
Schmeidler’s floorplan approach has undeniably made a positive contribution
to model-building, i.e., it seemingly demonstrates an empirical “focusing”
effect whereby the anomalous experiences of witnesses and some independent
research participants are consistently localized to certain target areas (or
“hot spots”) within haunted houses. However, key shortcomings in prior
applications undermine the results for theory-formation, i.e., understanding
(or for ruling out competing explanations) why the experiences of witnesses
and participants exhibit ostensible focusing effects.
Simply put, we do not know to what stimuli the various witnesses and
participants were attending or interpreting, as well as whether agreement
among independent raters reflects individual differences in attentional or
perceptual capabilities and if these perhaps related to ambient or architectural
features of the respective physical settings. Therefore, it can be argued that
previous results from floorplan approaches are uninterpretable without
critical contextual information from environmental psychology and witness
psychology. The “Occam’s Razor” dictum would argue that, until they are
controlled for, the Gestalt influences as reviewed here are more appropriate
mechanisms to contemplate compared to merely invoking anomalous or
parapsychological agencies.
Suggestions for future directions

The preceding ideas can usefully guide future research. For example, we
can revisit issues of reliability and validity in the floorplan approach via
some selective refinements and improvements that specifically address
theory-formation. The goal is to test more robustly the idea of haunts as
interactions between the “right people in the right settings,” with the
corresponding hypothesis that certain psychological traits characterise the
“right people” and specific physical variables or Gestalt influences describe
the “right settings.”
Figure 1 draws on our review to show one example of an empirically-
testable model for the presumed interactionist effect. This highly simplified
79
Figure 1. Hypothesised interactionist process for “haunted house” experiences and

empirical witness-rater correspondence effects via Schmeidler’s “floorplan” method.
depiction draws on Jelić et al.’s (2016, Fig. 2) enactive approach to

architectural experience. Here, an anomalistic-environmental perspective
might predict that:
• Target areas within “haunted houses” (or other sacred or enchanted
spaces) contain a greater number or intensity of discrete physical
variables and/or “Gestalt influences” than control areas.
• Prior witnesses and independent research participants (showing
correspondence effects in floorplan exercises) share an “encounter
prone” perceptual-personality profile (Laythe et al., 2018) that also
increases receptivity to certain environmental features. This profile
purportedly involves hypervigilance or heightened sensitivity to
internal and external stimuli (e.g., transliminality, Evans, Lange,
Houran, & Lynn, 2019), as well as biases in the attentional or
interpretational mechanisms related to anomalous experiences, i.e.,
paranormal belief, ideology, ambiguity tolerance, or aberrant salience
(e.g., Lange & Houran, 2001a; Ross, Hartig, & McKay, 2017).
Of course, research designs can be modified to test or control for a wide
array of physical and psychological variables related to these or similar
hypotheses. Readers might challenge this approach for poltergeist-like cases
that feature physical anomalies, which would seem immune to Gestalt
influences. Yet, we do not automatically discount potential associations in
this respect. Recall that psychological experiences and physical events
80
that are characteristic of haunted houses conform to a one-factor model

(Houran et al., 2019b; Houran & Lange, 2001). This implies that physical
and psychological anomalies are qualitatively different expressions of a core
construct and should be affected by the same causal variables. For instance,
expectancy-suggestion effects have been correlated with poltergeist-like
manifestations, not merely anomalous psychological experiences (e.g.,
Houran, 1997; Houran & Brugger, 2000; Wiseman, Greening, & Smith, 2003).
This reasoning suggests that a connection might exist between Gestalt
influences and the perception or report of physical anomalies in some cases.
Researchers must explore these types of empirical questions to determine
the veracity of the present ideas for understanding haunt-type episodes. To
be sure, opportunities to conduct experimental proofs of conventional theories
have been rare and not always convincing. Placing Schmeidler’s floorplan
approach within a clearer and more rigorous evolutionary-environmental
framework should accordingly help to (i) bolster the internal validity of
parapsychological studies in this domain and (ii) support or expand orthodox
biomedical and social science studies that aim to conduct competitive
hypothesis testing related to embodied cognition in naturalistic settings (cf.
Jelić et al., 2016).
Quantifying the intensity of experients’ accounts in a standardised way
— i.e., the phenomenology of ghostly episodes — is now possible with the
Survey of Strange Events (SSE: Houran et al., 2019b). However, accounting
for Gestalt influences and related variables might not be so simple or
straightforward. This aspect of environmental psychology appears to be in its
infancy despite advancing measurements and methods. To promote new and
more stringent research efforts, Table 2 lists possible approaches to gauge
the six Gestalt influences discussed here. Some of these originate from
published studies, whereas other suggestions come from the present authors.
These proposals are not exhaustive but are offered as initial steps in
methodologies for researchers to apply, experiment, refine, or even replace as
needed. We acknowledge that some of these measurement approaches are
not ideal, as they arguably create inherent expectancy or suggestion effects
of their own. It might therefore take considerable time and effort to develop
practical, reliable, and valid sets of procedures. However, we argue strongly
that proper operationalisations and measurements are critical to successful
model-building and theory-formation in this domain (Houran, 2017; Houran
et al., 2019a; Laythe & Owen, 2012).
discussion
There is ample rationale for expecting certain ambient variables
or characteristics of built environments to elicit or mediate anomalous
experiences, and notably those often associated with “haunted houses.” Indeed,
it seems well established that extraordinary experiences — more mystical
than paranormal — can be triggered by architectural features (Bermudez,
2009; Bermudez & Ro, 2018). Such extraordinary architectural experiences
(EAEs) are formally defined as “an encounter with a building or place that
fundamentally alters one’s normal state of being. By ‘fundamental alteration’
it is meant a powerful and lasting shift in one’s physical, perceptual, emotional,
81
taBle 2
Possible measurement methods to estimate Gestalt influences in environmental psychology.
Gestalt Psychometric Alternative Prior Research

Influences Approach(es) Approach(es)* Methods
“What do you believe room x was used for? What about that room made you
believe that?”
“If I wanted to be happy which room would I go to and why?” Clark & Uzzell
“If I wanted to be alone with my thoughts which room would I go to and why? (2002), Heft
(What environmental aspects made you think that room would be conducive (1988), Kytta
Affordance
82
to thinking?)” (2002), Woolley &

“Which room do you think has the most experiences and why? (What about Johns (2001)
that room made you suspect it had the most experiences?)”
“Which room made you feel most uncomfortable? (Explain what aspects of the
room made it uncomfortable.)”
Aoun (2015),
“While in this location/room I felt strong emotions.”
Fornerino,
“While in this location/room I felt emotions that were more intense than those
Helme-Guizon &
I usually feel in daily life.”
Brief Measures of Gotteland (2008),
“While in this location/room, I experienced a series of very different emotions.”
Positive and Negative Jeongmi &
“At times, I was in an unusual emotional state.”
Affect: The PANAS Fesenmaier
“I identify strongly with this location.”
Atmosphere Scales (Watson & Clark, (2015), Pearce et
“I felt very attached to this location.”
1988) al. (2013),
“My perception of this location/room is different than others.”
Pharino et al.
“In this location/room my senses were intense.”
(2018), Williams
“This location/room impacted me emotionally, physically, and spiritually.
& Vaske (2003)
(Would be beneficial to identify the specific emotions and senses experienced
in certain locations/rooms.)”
Aberrant Salience
(Cicero et al., 2010);
Anomalous Experiences
Ambiguity
Inventory: Fear of the
&Threat “Do you expect to experience something mysterious or paranormal today?”
Paranormal (AEI:
Anticipatory
Gallagher et al., 1994);
Processes

Rasch AT-20 Scale
(Lange & Houran,
1999a)
“While in this location/room reality seemed to disappear.”
“At times, while in this room/location I was unaware of my surroundings.” Fornerino et al.
“At times, while in this location/room, my body was in the room, but my mind (2008), Reid et al.
Immersion & was elsewhere.” (2005a, 2005b)
Presence “This location/room made me forget the realities of the world outside.”
“This location/room made me forget about my immediate surroundings.”
“While in this room/location I felt as if I became one with it.”
“While in this location/room I felt my sense of self disappear.”
83
“General feeling of safety in this location/room?”

“This location/room makes me feel safe.”
“This location/room offers an opportunity for protection.” Fisher & Nasar
(1992), Mumcu et
Legibility
“Describe the layout of the house.” (Likert scale from very easy to navigate/ al., (2010),
very difficult to navigate) Stamps (2007)
“Describe the ease of exit/escape from the house.” (Likert scale from very easy
to very difficult)
Memory Experiences “Have you had any extremely memorable experiences (positive or negative) in
Percipient
Questionnaire (Luchetti settings or buildings similar to this one?”
Memory
& Sutin, 2016) “Did this environment cause you to think about a specific person? Mood?
&Associations
Time? Object?”
*Such items can be binary (e.g., “yes/no” or “true/false”) or Likert-based (e.g., “strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree”)
intellectual, and/or spiritual appreciation of architecture. In contrast, an

ordinary experience of architecture, however interesting or engaging, does not
cause a significant impact in one’s life” (Bermudez, 2008, p. 2).
Illustratively, people report “being one with the world/place” during EAEs,
a shift in consciousness that Bermudez (2009) believes architecture can
influence. For example, in a pilot study using fMRI studies to gauge the
frames of mind that different types of buildings may bring about, structures
such as temples, retreats, and churches induced markedly contemplative
states (with decreased anxiety) when compared to ordinary buildings (e.g.,
schools, offices, and houses) (Bermudez et al., 2014). Could allegedly haunted
locations cause people to react in a manner similar to places that elicit EAEs?
It seems possible given that EAEs “occur suddenly, involve important time-
space perceptual anomalies, collapse boundaries separating self and other,
[and] are extraordinarily vivid” (Bermudez, 2010, p. 11).
Furthermore, across thousands of reports, EAEs typically involve strong
bodily reactions (goosebumps, weeping, trembling, chills), and a sense of
uncontrollability (Bermudez, 2010) — as do many haunts. In fact, some
authors propose that such a mixed bodily state of joy and disturbance
produces a sense of “enchantment,” which might explain the appeal of sacred
spaces and ghostly experiences (Bennett, 2001; Holloway, 2010; Schneider,
1993). The question of how particular built environments and the elements
in them trigger fervent emotions or cognitions echoes the concepts of
“affordances” and the interrelationship of feelings and “atmosphere.”
It might turn out that settings with pronounced physical factors or Gestalt
influences can induce anomalous experiences or EAEs in almost anyone with
healthy physiological and psychological functioning. Put another way, an
“encounter prone” psychometric profile is perhaps not prerequisite in these
instances (cf. Houran, 2002). Thus, the investigation of discrete environmental
factors that can serve as conscious or unconscious prompts for perception
may only advance knowledge in this domain to a limited degree. The
assumption that haunted houses and ghostly episodes are an interactionist
phenomenon (or involve “enactive” processes, cf. Jelić et al., 2016, Figures 1
& 2) necessitates new research designs that test hypotheses grounded in
person-environment bidirectional interactions.
The current neuroscientific understanding of the psychology of architecture
can be summarised this way: “People live in bodies, bodies live in spaces….
and brains work in certain ways….Not just conscious thoughts but non-
conscious impressions, feedback from our senses, physical movement, and
even split-second mental simulations of that movement shape how we
respond to a place” (Hurley, 2017, para. 3–9). The feelings engendered by
certain places — and the reasons for those feelings — is an increasingly
popular research question. Mainstream researchers in evolutionary and
environmental psychology might therefore better leverage the unique
benefits that fieldwork studies of “haunted houses” can provide. In this way,
hypotheses can be explored and tested in real-time and within naturalistic
settings. The rubric of ghosts and haunts naturally attracts the general
public (Hill et al., 2018, 2019), which can subsequently encourage large and
diverse research samples (cf. Wiseman, Watt, et al., 2003).
84
We suspect that Gestalt influences are unlikely to be easily or precisely

quantified at this stage, so they present a creative methodological challenge
for researchers. For example, Affordance presumably interacts with
Atmosphere and Ambiguity. A Ouija board that is present in a room, will
increase affordance while also contributing to the atmosphere of the
location and, dependent on the cultural beliefs of the participant, may induce
ambiguity, excitement, and/or fear. If such influences are truly “Gestalt” in
their nature, simply documenting the individual elements within
a built environment will not capture their effect. This calls to mind
the arguments Durkheim (2013) made regarding the influence of society
and culture upon the individuals who are part of society while being
disproportionally influenced by it.
Applied to haunted, sacred, or enchanted spaces, researchers might also
find value in lessons drawn from the fields of marketing and political science
— whereby environment, detail, and background are expertly manipulated
to foster specific perceptions and beliefs about people or products. Media
manipulation, in this sense, might provide investigators with clues toward
defining and understanding the interactions between or among Gestalt
influences.
More broadly speaking, we give the last word to the late Michael A.
Persinger, a prolific neuroscientist and researcher of “sensed presences” and
related haunt-type experiences. He noted that, while a central architectural
principle is that form follows function, “it is as imperative to state…that
function follows emotion” (Pasini, Persinger, & Beesley, 2014,
p. 80). Consequently, evolutionary and environmental perspectives should be
consistently and vigorously leveraged in future work to help reveal the
strength and scope of the “physicalpsychological” interactions that might
be haunting our houses and creating environments that some people
experience as enchanted or sacred spaces.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank John G. Kruth and Frank T. McAndrew for assistance with
background information and literature, as well as two anonymous reviewers
for their constructive comments on an earlier draft.
Integrated Knowledge Systems JaMes houran
7041 Briarmeadow Dr.
Dallas, Texas 75230
Jim_houran@yahoo.com
REFERENCES
Aoun, R. (2015, October 2). Emotional design in architecture: Impact of space on moods and
behavior. Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia. http://www.iaacblog.com/
programs/emotional-design-in-architecture-impact-of-space-on-moods-and-behavior/
Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Atran, S. (2002). In Gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Barrett, H. C. (2005). Adaptations to predators and prey. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook
of evolutionary psychology (pp. 200–223). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
85
Bell, M.M. (1997). The ghosts of place. Theory and Society, 26, 813–836.
Bennett, J. (2001). The enchantment of modern life: Attachments, crossings and ethics.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bermudez, J. (2008). Mapping the phenomenological territory of profound architectural
atmospheres: Results of two large surveys. Proceedings of the International Symposium
“Creating an Atmosphere”. Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Grenoble,
France (Sept 10–12).
Bermudez, J. (2009). The extraordinary in architecture: Studying and acknowledging the
reality of the spiritual. 2A — Architecture and Art Magazine. Autumn, 12, 46–49.
Bermudez, J. (2010). Non-ordinary architectural phenomenologies: Non-dualist experiences
and Husserl’s reduction. Environmental and Architectural Phenomenology, 21,
11–15.
Bermudez, J., Krizaj, D., Lipschitz, D., Yurgelun, D., & Nakamura, Y. (2014). fMRI study
of architecturally-induced contemplative states. Paper presented at the Academy of
Neuroscience for Architecture Conference. Salk Institute, Sept. 18–20.
Bermudez, J. & Ro, B. R. (2018). The experience of President Lincoln’s cottage: Results of a
museum focused post-occupancy evaluation survey. President Lincoln’s Cottage. http://
www.lincolncottage.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Exec-Summary-and-Visitor-
Impact-Study-Report_2018.pdf
Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44.
Canepa, E., Scelsi, V., Fassio, A., Avanzino, L., Lagravinese, G., & Chiorri, C. (2019).
Atmospheres: Feeling architecture by emotions. Ambiances, 5.
Caputo, G. B. (2014). Archetypal-imaging and mirror-gazing. Behavioral Sciences, 4, 1–13.
Cardeña, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (Eds.). (2014). Varieties of anomalous experience:
Examining the scientific evidence (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Cardeña, E., Palmer, J., & Marcussion-Clavertz, D. (Eds.). (2015). Parapsychology: A
handbook for the 21st century. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Cicero, D. C., Kerns, J. G., & McCarthy, D. M. (2010). The Aberrant Salience Inventory: A
new measure of psychosis proneness. Psychological Assessment, 22, 688–701.
Clark, C. & Uzzell, D. (2002). The affordances of the home, neighbourhood, school and town
centre for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 95–108.
Cochrane, A. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services.
London, UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
Cooper, C. E. (2010). Phone calls from the dead. Anomaly: Journal of Research into the
Paranormal, 44, 3–21.
Cooper, C. E. (2013). Post-death experiences and the emotion of hope. Journal for Spiritual
and Consciousness Studies, 36, 24–28.
Donohoe, J. (2014). Remembering places: A phenomenological study of the relationship
between memory and place. New York: Lexington Books.
Draper, J., Kaber, D., & Usher, J. (1998). Telepresence. Human Factors, 40, 354–375.
Drinkwater, K., Cocchiarella, F., & Dagnall, N. (2019). In search of the anomalous: Rela-
tionships between the design of interior space, darkness and haunted experience. Paper
presented at the “The Thrill of the Dark: Heritages of Fear, Fascination and Fantasy”
Conference. University of Birmingham, UK, April 25–27.
Drinkwater, K., Laythe, B., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., O’Keeffe, C., & Hill, S. A. (2019).
Exploring gaslighting effects via the VAPUS model for ghost narratives. Australian
Journal of Parapsychology, 19, 143–179.
Durkheim, E. (2013). Émile Durkheim on institutional analysis. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Eaton, M. (2019). Manifesting spirits: Paranormal investigation and the narrative
development of a haunting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 48, 155–182.
86
Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1988). Anthropology (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Erickson, M, . H., &Rossi, E. L. (1979). Hypnotherapy: An exploratory casebook. New York:
Irvington.
Erickson, M,. H., &Rossi, E. L. (1981) Experiencing hypnosis: Therapeutic approaches to
altered states. New York: Irvington.
Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E. L., & Rossi, S. I. (1976) Hypnotic realities: The induction of
clinical hypnosis and forms of indirect suggestion. New York: Irvington.
Evans, H. (2001). The ghost experience in a wider context. In J. Houran & R. Lange (Eds.),
Hauntings and poltergeists: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 41–61). Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Co.
Evans, J., Lange, R., Houran, J., & Lynn, S. J. (2019). Further psychometric exploration of
the transliminality construct. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 6, 417–438.
Fich, L. (2016). Can the design of space alter stress response? Academy of Neuroscience for
Architecture, Connections: Bridge Synapses Conference, Salk Institute, Sept. 23–24.
Fisher, B. & Nasar, J. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features:
Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35–65.
Fornerino, M., Helme-Guizon, A., & Gotteland, D. (2008). Movie consumption experience
and immersion: Impact on satisfaction. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 23,
1–19.
Gallagher, C., Kumar, V. K., & Pekala, R. J. (1994). The Anomalous Experiences Inventory:
Reliability and validity. Journal of Parapsychology, 58, 402–428.
Gallese, V. & Sinigaglia, C. (2010). The bodily self as power for action.Neuropsychologia, 48,
746–755.
Gauld, A., & Cornell, A. D. (1979/2017). Poltergeists. Hove, UK: White Crow Books.
Gibson, J. (1986).The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Psychology
Press.
Goldhagen, S. W. (2017). Welcome to your world: How the built environment shapes our lives.
New York: HarperCollins.
Greenwood, V. (2019, July 30). Worklife 101: Why indoor air quality matters to our bodies
and our brains. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190724-why-indoor-air-
quality-matters-to-our-bodies-and-our-brains
Harte, T. M. (2000). Contextual mediation of perceptions during hauntings and poltergeist-
like experiences: a replication and extension. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 451–459.
Haslam, A. S., Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & McGarty, C. (1995). Social categorization and
group homogeneity: Changes in the perceived applicability of stereotype content as a
function of comparative context and trait favorableness. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 34, 139–160.
Hathorn, K. (2012). The role of visual art in improving quality-of-life related outcomes for
older adults. Paper presented at the Workshop on Research Gaps and Opportunities
for Exploring the Relationship of the Arts to Health and Well-Being in Older Adults.
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on National Statistics, Washington, DC,
Sept. 14.
Hathorn, K., & Nanda, U. (2008). A guide to evidence-based art. The Center for Health
Design: https://www.healthdesign.org/sites/default/files/Hathorn_Nanda_Mar08.pdf
Hawes, B. K., Brunyé, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., Sullivan, J. M., & Aall, C. D. (2012). Effects of
four workplace lighting technologies on perception, cognition and affective state.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42, 122–128.
Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to
environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5, 29–37.
Heidegger, M. (1927/1996). Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit (Translated by J.
Stambaugh). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
87
Hill, S. A., O’Keeffe, C., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., Ventola, A. & Houran, J.
(2018). “Meme-spirited:” I. The VAPUS model for understanding the prevalence and
potency of ghost narratives. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 18, 117–152.
Hill, S. A., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., O’Keeffe, C., Ventola, A., & Houran, J.
(2019). “Meme-spirited”: II. Illustrations of the VAPUS model for ghost narratives.
Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 19, 5–43.
Holloway, J. (2010). Legend-tripping in spooky spaces: Ghost tourism and infrastructures of
enchantment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 618–637.
Houran, J. (1997). Ambiguous origins and indications of “poltergeists.” Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 84, 339–344.
Houran, J. (2000). Toward a psychology of ‘entity encounter experiences.’ Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, 64, 141–158.
Houran, J. (2002). Analysis of haunt experiences at a historical Illinois landmark. Australian
Houran, J. (Ed.) (2004). From shaman to scientist: Essays on humanity’s search for spirits.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Houran, J. (2017). “Sheet happens!” Advancing ghost studies in the analytics age. Australian
Houran, J., & Brugger, P. (2000). The need for independent control sites: A methodological
suggestion with special reference to haunting and poltergeist field research. European
Houran, J., Kumar, V. K., Thalbourne, M. A., & Lavertue, N. E. (2002). Haunted by somatic
tendencies: Spirit infestation as psychogenic illness. Mental Health, Religion & Culture,
5, 119–133.
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (1996). Hauntings and poltergeist-like episodes as a confluence of
conventional phenomena: A general hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 1307–
1316.
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (1998). Rationale and application of a multi-energy sensor array in
the investigation of haunting and poltergeist cases. Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 62, 324–336.
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (2001). A Rasch hierarchy of haunt and poltergeist experiences.
Houran, J., Lange, R., & Hooper, D. (2018). Cross-examining the case for precognition:
Commentary on Mossbridge and Radin (2018). Psychology of Consciousness: Theory,
Research and Practice, 5, 98–109.
Houran, J., Laythe, B., O’Keefe, C., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & Lange, R. (2019a).
Quantifying the phenomenology of ghostly episodes — Part I: Need for a standard
operationalization. Journal of Parapsychology, 83, 25–46.
Houran, J., Lange, R., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & O’Keefe, C. (2019b).
Quantifying the phenomenology of ghostly episodes — Part II: A Rasch model of
spontaneous accounts. Journal of Parapsychology, 83, 170–194.
Houran, J. & Williams, C. (1998). Relation of tolerance of ambiguity to global and specific
paranormal experience. Psychological Reports, 83, 807–818.
Houran, J., Wiseman, R., & Thalbourne, M. (2002). Perceptual-personality characteristics
associated with naturalistic haunt experiences. European Journal of Parapsychology,
17, 17–44.
Hunter, J. (2018). Engaging the anomalous: Collected essays on anthropology, the
paranormal, mediumship and extraordinary experience. Hove, UK: August Night
Press.
Hurley, A. K. (2017, July 14). This is your brain on architecture. Citylab. https://www.
citylab.com/design/2017/07/this-is-your-brain-on-architecture/531810/
Irwin, H. J. (2009). The psychology of paranormal belief: A researcher’s handbook.
Hertfordshire, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press.
88
Jawer, M. (2006). Environmental sensitivity: Inquiry into a possible link with apparitional
experience. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 70, 25–47.
Jelić, A., & Fich, L. B. (2018). Using the embodied language of space to develop stress as-
sessment tool for architectural experience. Paper presented at the Academy of Neuro-
science for Architecture: Shared Behavioral Outcomes Conference, Salk Institute, Sept.
20–22.
Jelić, A., Tieri, G., De Matteis, F., Babiloni, F., & Vecchiato, G. (2016). The enactive approach
to architectural experience: A neurophysiological perspective on embodiment,
motivation, and affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–20.
Jeongmi, K. & Fesenmaier, D. (2015). Measuring emotions in real time: Implications for
tourism experience design. Journal of Travel Research, 54, 419–429.
Kerr, M. (2015). Scream: Chilling adventures in the science of fear. New York: Public Affairs.
Kytta, M. (2002). Affordances of children’s environments in the context of cities, small
towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus. Journal of Environmental
Lange, R., & Houran, J. (1998). Delusions of the paranormal: A haunting question of
perception. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 186, 637–645.
Lange, R., & Houran, J. (1999a). Scaling MacDonald’s AT-20 using item response theory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 467–475.
Lange, R., & Houran, J. (1999b). The role of fear in delusions of the paranormal. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 187, 159–166.
Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2000). Modeling Maher’s attribution theory of delusions as a cusp
catastrophe. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 4, 235–254.
Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2001a). Ambiguous stimuli brought to life: the psychological
dynamics of hauntings and poltergeists. In J. Houran & R. Lange (Eds.), Hauntings and
poltergeists: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 280–306). Jefferson, NC: McFarland
& Co.
Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2001b). Power laws and autoregressive catastrophes: The dynamic
properties of poltergeist episodes. Technical report to the Institut für Grenzgebiete der
Psychologie und Psychohygiene (IGPP), Freiburg i. Br., Germany.
Laythe, B., & Houran, J. (2019). Concomitant object movements and EMF-spikes at a
purported haunt. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 83, 212–229.
Laythe, B., Houran, J., & Ventola, A. (2018). A split-sample psychometric study of haunters.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81, 193–218.
Laythe, B. R., Laythe, E. C., & Woodward, L. (2017). A test of an occult themed séance:
Examining anomalous events, psychosomatic symptoms, transliminality, and electro-
magnetic fields. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 31, 572–624.
Laythe, B., & Owen, K. (2012). Paranormal belief and the strange case of haunt experiences:
Evidence of a neglected population. Journal of Parapsychology, 76, 79–108.
Leander, N. P., Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (2012). You give me the chills: Embodied
reactions to inappropriate amounts of behavioral mimicry. Psychological Science, 23,
772–779.
Legrand, D. (2006). The bodily self: The sensori-motor roots of pre-reflective self-
consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5, 89–118.
Levine, R., Chein, I., & Murphy, G. (1942) The relation of the intensity of a need to the
amount of perceptual distortion: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychology, 13,
283–293.
Lidov, A. (Ed.) (2006). Hierotopy: Creation of sacred spaces in Byzantium and medieval
Russia. Moscow: Progress-Tradition.
Luchetti M., & Sutin A. R. (2016). Measuring the phenomenology of autobiographical
memory: A short form of the Memory Experiences Questionnaire. Memory, 24, 592–602.
Maher, M. C. (1999). Riding the waves in search of the particles: A modern study of ghosts
and apparitions. Journal of Parapsychology, 63, 47–80.
89
Maher, M. C. (2000). Quantitative investigation of the General Wayne Inn. Journal of

Parapsychology, 64, 365–390.
Maher, M. (2015). Ghosts and poltergeists: An eternal enigma. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, &
D. Marcussion-Clavertz, D. (Eds.), Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century (pp.
327–240). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Maher, M. C., & Hansen, G. P. (1992). Quantitative investigation of a reported haunting
using several detection techniques. Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research, 86, 347–374.
Maher, M. C., & Hansen, G. P. (1995). Quantitative investigation of a ‘haunted castle’ in
New Jersey. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 89, 19–50.
Maher, M. & Schmeidler, G. R. (1975). Quantitative investigation of a recurrent apparition.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 69, 341–351.
Martina L. & Angelina R. (2016). Measuring the phenomenology of autobiographical
memory: A short form of the Memory Experiences Questionnaire. Memory, 24,
592–602.
McAndrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental psychology. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.
McAndrew, F. T. (2015, October 29). Evolutionary psychology explains why haunted houses
creep us out. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/evolutionary-psychology-
explains-why-haunted-houses-creep-us-out-48209
McAndrew, F. T. (2020). The psychology, geography, and architecture of horror: How places
creep us out. Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, 4.1. https://esiculture.com/
the-psychology-geography-and-architecture-of-horror
McAndrew, F. T, & Koehnke, S. S. (2016). On the nature of creepiness. New Ideas in
Meehan, M., Insko, B., Whitton, M., & Brooks Jr, F. P. (2002). Physiological measures
of presence in stressful virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 21,
645–652.
Meehan, M., Razzaque, S., Insko, B., Whitton, M., & Brooks, F. (2005). Review of four
studies on the use of physiological reaction as a measure of presence in stressful virtual
environments. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 30, 239–258.
Meyers-Levy, J. & Zhu, R. (2007). The influence of ceiling height and the effects of priming
on the type of processing that people use. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 174–186.
Moss, T., & Schmeidler, G. R. (1968). Quantitative investigation of a “haunted house” with
sensitives and a control group. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research,
62, 399–410.
Mumcu, S., Düzenli, T., & Özbilen, A. (2010). Prospect and refuge as the predictors of
preferences for seating areas. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 1223–1233.
Nickell, J. (2001). Phantoms, Frauds, or Fantasies? In J. Houran & R. Lange (Eds.),
Hauntings and Poltergeists: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 214–224). Jefferson,
NC: McFarland & Co.
Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: The
role of fit in the salience of social categorization. British Journal of Social Psychology,
30, 125–144.
O’Keeffe, C., Houran, J., Houran, D. J., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., Sheridan, L., & Laythe,
B. (2019). The Dr. John Hall story: A case study of putative “haunted people syndrome.”
Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 22, 910–929.
Pallasmaa J. (2011). The embodied image: Imagination and imagery in architecture.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Parra, A. (2018). Perceptual-personality variables associated with entity encounter
experiences. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 18, 23–48.
Pasini, C., Persinger, M., & Beesley, P. (2014). The sense of presence: Utilizing emotional
feedback. Paper presented at the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture Conference,
Salk Institute, Sept. 18–20.
90
Pearce, P., Wu, M., De Carlo, M., & Ross, R. (2013). Contemporary experiences of Chinese
tourists in Italy: An on-site analysis in Milan. Tourism Management Perspectives,7,
34–37.
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Priester, J. R. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of
the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.),
Media effects: Advances in theory and research(3 ed., pp. 125–164). New York: Routledge.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus
integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367–374.
Pharino, C., Pearce, P., & Pryce, J. (2018). Paranormal tourism: Assessing tourists’ onsite
experiences. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 20–28.
Reid, J., Geelhoed, E., Hull, R., Carter, K., & Clayton, B. (2005a) Parallel worlds: Immersion
in location-based experiences. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, CHI, 1733–1736.
Reid, J., Cater, K., Fleuriot, C., & Hull, R. (2005b). Experience design guidelines for creating
situated mediascapes. Mobile and Media Systems Laboratory, HP Laboratories Bristol.
Rentfrow, P. J. (Ed.) (2013). Geographical psychology: Exploring the interaction of
environment and behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rich, S. C. (2012, August 6). The architecture of memory. Smithsonian Magazine. https://
www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-architecture-of-memory-14396375/
Rodriquez-McRobbie, L. (2015, October 29). On the science of creepiness. Smithsonian
Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-creepiness-
180957093/
Roll, W. G. (1977). Poltergeists. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of parapsychology
(pp. 382–413). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Roll, W. G., & Persinger, M. A. (2001). Investigations of poltergeists and haunts: A review
and interpretation. In J. Houran & R. Lange (Eds.), Hauntings and poltergeists:
Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 123–163). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.
Ross, R. M., Hartig, B., & McKay, R. (2017). Analytic cognitive style predicts paranormal
explanations of anomalous experiences but not the experiences themselves: Implications
for cognitive theories of delusions. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 56, 90–96.
Seamon, D. (2014). Place attachment and phenomenology: The synergistic dynamism of
place. In L. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory,
methods and research (pp. 11–22). New York: Routledge/Francis & Taylor.
Schauss, A. (1985). The physiological effect of color on the suppression of human aggression:
Research on Baker-Miller pink. International Journal for Biosocial Research, 7, 55–64.
Schneider, M. A. (1993). Culture and enchantment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Schmeidler, G. R. (1966). Quantitative investigation of a “haunted house.” Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research, 60, 137–149.
Stamps, A. (2007). Interior prospect and refuge. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103, 643–653.
Steffen, E., & Coyle, A. (2012). ‘Sense of presence’ experiences in bereavement and their
relationship to mental health: A critical examination of a continuing controversy. In
C. Murray (Ed.), Mental health and anomalous experience (pp. 33–56). Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science Publishers.
Sternberg, E. (2009). Healing spaces: The science of place and well-being. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Tandy, V., & Lawrence, T. R. (1998). The ghost in the machine. Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 62, 360–364.
Tilley, R. (2002). Poltergeist disturbances and hauntings brought to a lasting successful
conclusion (some failures too). Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 2, 127–160.
91
UK Parliament. (2020). Churchill and the Commons Chamber. https://www.parliament.uk/

about/living-heritage/building/palace/architecture/palacestructure/churchill/
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science,
224, 420–421.
Urist, J. (2016, April 12). The psychological cost of boring buildings. The Cut. http://thecut.
com/2016/04/the-psychological-cost-of-boring-buildings.html
van Elk, M. (2015). Perceptual biases in relation to paranormal and conspiracy beliefs.
PLoS ONE, 10(6): e0130422.
Ventola, A., Houran, J., Laythe, B., Storm, L., Parra, A., Dixon, J., & Kruth, J. G. (2019). A
transliminal ‘dis-ease’ model of poltergeist ‘agents.’ Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research, 83, 144–171.
Watson, D. & Clark, L. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063–1070.
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt
psychology (pp. 1–11). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company.
Whitson, J. & Galinsky, A. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception.
Science,322, 115–117.
Williams, D. & Vaske, J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment:Validity and
generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830–840.
Williams, B., & Ventola, A. (2011). Poltergeist phenomena: A primer on parapsychological
research and perspectives. Public Parapsychology. http://publicparapsychology.org/
Public%20Parapsych/Poltergeist%20Phenomena%20Primer%20Final.pdf
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wiseman, R., Greening, E., & Smith, M. (2003). Belief in the paranormal and suggestion in
the séance room. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 285–297.
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Greening, E., Stevens, P., & O’Keeffe, C. (2002). An investigation
into the alleged haunting of Hampton Court Palace: Psychological variables and
magnetic fields. Journal of Parapsychology, 66, 387–408.
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Stevens, P., Greening, E., & O’Keefe, C. (2003). An investigation into
alleged ‘hauntings.’ British Journal of Psychology, 94, 195–211.
Woolley, H. & Johns, R. (2001). Skateboarding: The city as a playground, Journal of Urban
Design, 6, 211–230.
Zausner, T. (1998). Creativity: Panic Attacks, and States of Awe: A Model from Nonlinear
Dynamics. Paper presented at the Eight Annual Conference of the Society of Chaos
Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences, Boston, MA. July 28–August 1.
Zoura, D. (2018). Can different ceiling heights influence the way we think? Senses and
Spaces. https://www.sensesandspaces.com/blog//can-different-ceiling-heights-influence-
the-way-you-think
Zumthor, P. (2006). Atmospheres: Architectural environments — surrounding objects. Basel/
Boston/ Berlin: Birkhäuser.
92

Environmental Gestalt Influences Pertine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Gestalt Influences Pertine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDITORIAL

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 2020

ENVIRONMENTAL “GESTALT INFLUENCES” PERTINENT TO

disturbances can be described in this context as clusters of unusual

mass (contagious) psychogenic illness, as well as more recently introduced

environments. Considerable evidence in this domain indicates that some

influence perception. Undoubtedly, elements of a building or space exert an

the phenomenology of Heidegger (1927/1996) in the sense that the person

a kind of risk assessment performed unconsciously in order to make sense of

words, when individuals are unable to gain a sense of control (physical or

4) Immersion and presence

5) Legibility and the Lens of “Para-Design”

perceived as unappealing, unsafe, or even dangerous (Fisher & Nasar, 1992;

6) Percipient memory and associations

These examples illustrate that memory is thoroughly embodied, reflecting

Environmental “Gestalt Influences” Pertinent to Studies of Haunted Houses

Individual and collective

Significantly more reports

intriguing associations between areas where prior witnesses and independent

Suggestions for future directions

Figure 1. Hypothesised interactionist process for “haunted house” experiences and

depiction draws on Jelić et al.’s (2016, Fig. 2) enactive approach to

that are characteristic of haunted houses conform to a one-factor model

Gestalt Psychometric Alternative Prior Research

to thinking?)” (2002), Woolley &

Environmental “Gestalt Influences” Pertinent to Studies of Haunted Houses

“General feeling of safety in this location/room?”

intellectual, and/or spiritual appreciation of architecture. In contrast, an

We suspect that Gestalt influences are unlikely to be easily or precisely

Maher, M. C. (2000). Quantitative investigation of the General Wayne Inn. Journal of

UK Parliament. (2020). Churchill and the Commons Chamber. https://www.parliament.uk/

You might also like