The Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences (INOE): Evidence of validity in the United States and India

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 18; no. 7; p. e0287780
• Main Authors: Taves, Ann, Ihm, Elliott, Wolf, Melissa, Barlev, Michael, Kinsella, Michael, Vyas, Maharshi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 26-07-2023
• Subjects: Appraisals; Biology and Life Sciences; Civilization; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Culture; Design; Evaluation; Experiential research; Humans; India; Information management; People and Places; Psychopathology; Religion; Research and Analysis Methods; Researchers; Social Sciences; Spirituality; Surveys; Surveys and Questionnaires; United States; United States; India; United States > US
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287780

Researchers increasingly recognize that the mind and culture interact at many levels to constitute our lived experience, yet we know relatively little about the extent to which culture shapes the way people appraise their experiences and the likelihood that a given experience will be reported. Experiences that involve claims regarding deities, extraordinary abilities, and/or psychopathology offer an important site for investigating the interplay of mind and culture at the population level. However, the difficulties inherent in comparing culture-laden experiences, exacerbated by the siloing of research on experiences based on discipline-specific theoretical constructs, have limited our ability to do so. We introduce the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences (INOE), which allows researchers to compare experiences by separating the phenomenological features from how they are appraised and asking about both. It thereby offers a new means of investigating the potentially universal (etic) and culture-specific (emic) aspects of lived experiences. To ensure that the INOE survey items are understood as intended by English speakers in the US and Hindi speakers in India, and thus can serve as a basis for cross-cultural comparison, we used the Response Process Evaluation (RPE) method to collect evidence of item-level validity. Our inability to validate some items drawn from other surveys suggests that they are capturing a wider range of experiences than researchers intend. Wider use of the RPE method would increase the likelihood that survey results are due to the differences that researchers intend to measure.