Psychology of Religion and Spirituality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality The Language of Ineffability: Linguistic Analysis of Mystical Experiences David B. Yaden, Johannes C. Eichstaedt, H. Andrew Schwartz, Margaret L. Kern, Khoa D. Le Nguyen, Nancy A. Wintering, Ralph W. Hood, Jr., and Andrew B. Newberg Online First Publication, July 27, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000043 CITATION Yaden, D. B., Eichstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Kern, M. L., Le Nguyen, K. D., Wintering, N. A., Hood, R. W., Jr., & Newberg, A. B. (2015, July 27). The Language of Ineffability: Linguistic Analysis of Mystical Experiences. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000043 Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2015 American Psychological Association 2015, Vol. 7, No. 4, 000 1941-1022/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000043 The Language of Ineffability: Linguistic Analysis of Mystical Experiences David B. Yaden, Johannes C. Eichstaedt, Margaret L. Kern and H. Andrew Schwartz University of Pennsylvania and University of Melbourne University of Pennsylvania Khoa D. Le Nguyen Nancy A. Wintering University of Pennsylvania Thomas Jefferson University Ralph W. Hood Jr. Andrew B. Newberg University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Thomas Jefferson University Mystical experiences are often described as “ineffable,” or beyond language. However, people readily speak about their mystical experiences if asked about them. How do people describe what is supposedly indescribable? In this study, we used quantitative linguistic analyses to interpret the writings of 777 participants (45.5% female, 51.0% male) who recounted their most significant spiritual or religious experience as part of an online survey. High and low scorers on a measure of mystical experiences differed in the language they used to describe their experiences. Participants who have had mystical experiences used language that was more socially and spatially inclusive (e.g., “close,” “we,” “with”) and used fewer overtly religious words (e.g., “prayed,” “Christ,” “church”) than participants without such experiences. Results indicated that people can meaningfully communicate their mystical experiences, and that quantitative language analyses provide a means for understanding aspects of such experiences. Keywords: inclusion, linguistic analysis, mystical experiences, religion, spirituality If that is ineffable which cannot be spoken, then that is not ineffable ineffability means that by definition, mystical experiences are which is called ineffable beyond verbal description. Whereas some scholars maintain —Augustine, 1958, pp. 10–11 that language cannot adequately capture any aspect of mystical experiences (a view called “apophatic mysticism”), others Mystical experiences are temporary mental states that include maintain that the term “ineffability” qualifies one’s capacity to profound feelings of unity, positive emotions, a noetic quality, convey the full breadth of these profound experiences (Proud- and most notably for the present study, alleged ineffability foot, 1985). In general, people rarely discuss these deeply (Austin, 2006; Griffiths, Richards, McCann, & Jesse, 2006; meaningful and generally positive experiences with others on Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; James, 1902/1985; Pahnke, 1969; Richards, 1975; Stace, 1960; Wulff, 2000). The criterion of their own accord (Hay, 1990; Tamminen, 1991). Yet when asked about them, those who have had such experiences often go on to describe them in detail, using language. This pattern led Chinese poet and comic Po Chu-I to comment on the mystical text, the Tao te Ching: “‘He who talks doesn’t know, he who knows doesn’t talk’ that is what Lao-tzu told us, in a This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. David B. Yaden and Johannes C. Eichstaedt, Department of Psychology, book of five thousand words. If he was the one who knew, how This article is intended solely for the personal use ofUniversity the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. of Pennsylvania; H. Andrew Schwartz, Computer & Informa- tion Science, University of Pennsylvania; Margaret L. Kern, Department of could he have been such a blabbermouth?” (Mitchell, 1988, p. Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, and Melbourne Graduate School 89). of Education, University of Melbourne; Khoa D. Le Nguyen, Department Attempts have been made to examine verbal and written reports of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania; Nancy A. Wintering, Myrna of mystical experiences. James’s (1902/1985) Varieties of Reli- Brind Center of Integrative Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University; Ralph gious Experience rests mostly on personal accounts of New Eng- W. Hood Jr., Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee at land Protestants gathered by one of the fathers of the psychology Chattanooga; Andrew B. Newberg, Myrna Brind Center of Integrative of religion and spirituality, Edwin Starbuck. Durkheim (1912/ Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University. 2012) undertook a study of religious experience in Aborigines, and Khoa D. Le Nguyen is now at Department of Psychology, University of found that such experiences were central to these communities. North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David B. Maslow (1964) described the phenomenon of “peak experiences,” Yaden, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Mar- which share a large degree of overlap with mystical experiences, ket Street Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: dyaden@sas by consistently seeing them appear in transcripts of interviews .upenn.edu with highly successful, “self-actualized” individuals. Laski’s 1 2 YADEN ET AL. (1961) work on “transcendent ecstasy,” found that these experi- rience, including contextual information such as how schizophren- ences are rather common, and that when asked to describe them, ics use the word “schizophrenic” and “illness” more often in their people can readily do so. descriptions. The study did demonstrate, however, the feasibility Adding a more systematic approach, the Alister Hardy founda- of differentiating mental states through language. tion collected thousands of accounts of experiences from people Examining underlying features of narrative descriptions has who had responded to the questions, “Have you ever had the been limited largely by the lack of available methods for such feeling of being close to a powerful spiritual force that seemed to analyses. Newer tools from computer science are now making lift you out of yourself?” or “Have you ever been aware of or quantitative analysis of qualitative information possible. In this influenced by a presence or power, whether you call it God or not, study, we used tools from computational linguistics to quantita- which is different from your everyday self?” (Hardy, 1979; Hay & tively analyze the language people used to describe their spiritual, Morisy, 1985). These studies replicated previous findings that religious, and mystical experiences. To analyze the writing, we religious, spiritual, and mystical experiences are relatively com- used two different approaches. First, we used a common tool for mon, and not the rare, esoteric experiences that some mistakenly “top-down” linguistic analysis: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count suppose (Scharfstein, 1973). A synthesis of recent survey research (LIWC), a computer-based program that counts the frequency of found that about 35% of respondents have had mystical experi- words used from a predetermined set of lists or lexicons (Tausczik ences (Hood et al., 2009). However, this figure is open to a large & Pennebaker, 2010). The program includes 64 categories, with degree of interpretation. For instance, Hay (1979) found that 65% words that were rationally assigned based on psychological theory, of respondents affirmed being aware of or influenced by a pres- linguistic knowledge, and common sense. For example, the “ex- ence or power, but this number dropped to 29.4% affirmative clusive” language category contains words such as “without,” responses after follow-up interviews clarified the question and “either,” “except,” and “versus.” Diaries, blogs, homework assign- responses. The authors further differentiated between numinous ments, and research abstracts have all been analyzed using this experiences, which refer to a sense of presence (20.2%), and closed-vocabulary method (Pennebaker & King, 1999). Intuitive mystical experiences, which are characterized more by the sense of results have been found, such as a study that showed that people union (9.2%). More research is needed to develop an epidemiology scoring highly on neuroticism used more negative emotion words of religious, spiritual, and mystical experiences that includes well- (Pennebaker & King, 1999). Less obvious results have also been defined classifications to establish prevalence, triggers, descrip- generated, such as older individuals use more positive emotion and tions, underlying mechanisms, and outcomes of these often posi- fewer self-reference words (Pennebaker & Stone, 2003). tively transformative experiences. Second, we used an open vocabulary (“bottom-up”) approach, Analyzing the language of reports of mystical experiences may called Differential Language Analysis (DLA; Schwartz et al., help with this effort. However, linguistic descriptions of mystical 2013), which identifies words and topics most correlated with experiences defy easy categorization (Hay, 1979; Thomas & Coo-