Cited by 140Paranormal Experiences and BeliefsPsychedelics and Drug StudiesReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Mystical and other alterations in sense of self: an expanded framework for studying nonordinary experiences.

Open access
Taves, Ann·2020·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Although many researchers in psychology, religious studies, and psychiatry recognize that there is overlap in the experiences their subjects recount, disciplinary silos and challenges involved in comparing reported experiences have left us with little understanding of the mechanisms, whether biological, psychological, and/or sociocultural, through which these experiences are represented and differentiated. So-called mystical experiences, which some psychologists view as potentially sui generis, provide a test case for assessing whether we can develop an expanded framework for studying unusual experiences across disciplines and cultures. Evidence for the special nature of "mystical experience" rests on the operationalization of a metaphysically untestable construct in two widely used self-report scales: the Mysticism Scale and the Mystical Experiences Questionnaire. Consideration of the construct in light of research on alterations in sense of self induced by psychoactive drugs and meditation practices suggests that "positive experiences of undifferentiated unity" are not sui generis, but rather a type of "ego dissolution." To better understand the nature and effects of unusual experiences, such as alterations in the sense of self, we need self-report measures that distinguish between generically worded experiences and the way they are appraised in terms of valence, significance, cause, and long-term effects in different contexts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691619895047

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taves, A.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Taves, Ann
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2020-02-13
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
669-690
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W3005896034
Cited by
140
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
19.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
mystical experience, ego dissolution, selfhood, psychedelics, meditation, self-report measures, construct validity, cross-disciplinary comparison, altered states of consciousness
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Consciousness Disorders, Ego, Hallucinations, Humans, Life Change Events, Mysticism, Psychopathology, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Stress, Psychological, Meditation, Comprehension, Sense of Coherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review