Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation
I am happy to post an interview with Dr. Etzel Cardeña, whose work has been discussed in this blog before (click here, here, and here). I first met Etzel in 1984 when he came to the Institute of Parapsychology at Durham, North Carolina, for their Summer Study Program, where I was teaching.
Dr. Etzel Cardeña
Etzel, who has a PhD in psychology (with emphasis on Personality Psychology) from the University of California, Davis, is currently the Poul Thorsen Professor of Psychology at Lund University, in Sweden. In addition to his work in parapsychology, he is internationally known for his work on hypnosis and for various contributions to the literature on dissociation and trauma.
In addition to this work and supervising graduate students, Etzel has become known for editing comprehensive anthologies that have been very influential, work done together with other colleagues. One of them is Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2014, 2nd ed.), edited with Steven J. Lynn and Stanley Krippner. This is a groundbreaking work not only in its conception and structure, but also because it was published by the American Psychological Association. Another fascinating anthology was Altering Consciousness: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (co-edited with Michael Winkelman, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2011), which I believe is the best source today for information about altered states of consciousness. More recently Etzel edited, with John Palmer and David Marcusson-Clavertz, Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015). This is the one of the most important reference works on contemporary parapsychology.
Etzel is one of the most eminent psychologists involved with parapsychology in recent times. Evidence for this are the more than 20 awards he has received throughout his career. A few of them are: Charles Honorton Integrative Contributions Award (Parapsychological Association, 2013), Distinguished Scientific Contributions to Hypnosis (Society of Psychological Hypnosis, Division 30 of the American Psychological Association, 2007), Morton Prince Award for cumulative contribution to research on dissociative disorders (International Society for the Study of Dissociation, 1999), Pierre Janet Award for the best clinical, theoretical or research paper, (International Society for the Study of Dissociation, 2012), and College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Award for Excellence in Research (University of Texas, 2004).
How did you get interested in parapsychology?
I still remember vividly listening to my parents discuss J. B. Rhine’s research when I was a child in México. My father was a psychoanalyst with a great interest in parapsychology who held courses on the topic and discussed it with my also very well-read mother and us. He conducted informal exercises with family and friends trying to develop ostensible telepathy and clairvoyance and published with my brother a serial on parapsychology for the layperson. Although he did not use experimental controls I was still very impressed at times, particularly by a friend of the family who had an uncanny ability to diagnose precisely someone whose name had just been given to her. Growing up I took psi phenomena as a given and read some parapsychology research books besides the s/f speculations in books like Childhood’s End and More than Human.
Some years later, while doing a Ph. D. under Charley Tart on hypnosis, he encouraged me to attend an intensive parapsychology summer institute at the FRNM (currently the Rhine Research Center), around 1984. It was an unforgettable experience in so many different ways. The unsystematic knowledge about parapsychology I possessed became more solid and broad as I read a great amount of studies and attended the various lectures at the institute. I also participated in the research being conducted and got a book as a prize for scoring higher than other institute students in a PK experiment with a computer game (Poink) that Richard Broughton was conducting. In a ganzfeld study conducted by Nancy Zingrone and others, I stumbled onto an indication of the complexities of the phenomena. I recall that I had a very clear and unusual image that I even drew (and I do not like to draw at all) before receiving feedback. When I was shown the target and the three decoys, I said about one of them that that was the exact image I had seen (and had the drawing as corroboration) whether that one was the target or not. As it turned out, the target was the image I ranked second. Other than parapsychology, during the institute I attended some extraordinary modern dance performances at the American Dance Festival at Duke University, and went on a boat trip through the Eno River with the other institute students, full of ominous signs and reminiscent in scary ways of James Dickey’s Deliverance. No one died or got injured but it was an unforgettable and eerie experience.
After my stay at the FRNM, I got a scholarship from the Parapsychology Foundation to conduct field research in Haiti on spirit possession, subscribed to the main parapsychology journals, and kept myself informed of the field through reading them and presenting at and attending the PA and Parapsychology Research Group meetings. Then, about 12 years ago, the Chair I now hold at Lund University in Sweden was advertised and I was offered the position, which has a remit on parapsychology and hypnosis, and which I thought (and continue to think) was a wonderful fit and professional opportunity.
What are your main interests in the field and how have you contributed to its development?
I include my interest in psi phenomena within the field of alterations of consciousness and anomalous experiences. Plato/Socrates and a number of earlier and later thinkers have considered our ordinary state of consciousness as limiting and other modes of being as potentially able to reveal aspects of reality veiled to the ordinary state. Whether this is the case or not (and there are good reasons to believe it is), I think that alterations of consciousness need to be accounted for in any theory of consciousness and its relation to reality. From this perspective, I think that my main contributions to the field so far have been:
1) Normalizing anomalous experiences (including psi-related ones) within psychology through the two editions of Varieties of Anomalous Experience, published by a mainstream press (American Psychological Association), and other peer-reviewed books, papers and presentations. I have also tried to give some “cover,” to those who want to work in the field by co-organizing a published “Call for an Open, Informed Study of All Aspects of Consciousness,” signed by 100 current or past academics and published in a mainstream journal, as well as developing a very impressive list of eminent people from the past who were interested in psi, about to make its debut in the SPR psi webpages. My hope is that these publications will make it easier for faculty who are given the spiel that parapsychology is pseudoscience and that no “real” scientists take it seriously to argue that “real” and very eminent current scientists from Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Cambridge and other universities, besides figures from the past of the stature of Einstein, Planck, and Curie have supported research on the field.
2) The editing (see below) of an updated Handbook of Parapsychology, as well as upgrading the previous PA newsletter into the bulletin Mindfield, which I have now edited for 7 years.
3) Ongoing programmatic research on the relations between hypnosis, dissociation, alterations of consciousness, and performance in controlled psi experiments.
4) Linking psi phenomena to other disciplines (art and literature in a published paper, classical philosophy in a forthcoming paper).
5) Last but definitely not least, supervising doctoral students who will continue to work in the field. My previous doctoral student, Devin Terhune, got the Swedish award for the best young psychologist of that year, and David Marcusson-Clavertz has already published papers on psi and co-edited a book with me. I have another doctoral student doing important work on dissociation and trauma among young immigrants.
Why do you think that parapsychology is important?
This question can be either answered fairly in a book or succinctly in a couple of sentences. First, it strongly suggests (along with other phenomena discussed by Ed Kelly) that the current limitations to consciousness assumed by most materialist-reductionist models are fallacious. Second, and in agreement with a number of interpretations of quantum mechanics by such people as d’Espagnat and Stapp, it agrees with a model of a unified continuous aspect of reality. Finally, the link between alterations of consciousness and psi gives rise to the speculation, already considered by some classical Greek and Indian philosophers, that the filter of the ordinary state of consciousness might be more restrictive of certain aspects of reality than other states of consciousness.
In your view, what are the main problems in parapsychology today as a scientific field?
Where do I start? I have the advantage of also researching other areas that are more accepted and so I can bring an external perspective as well. One of the largest problems is the wrathful and prejudiced intolerance that characterizes so much of the anti-psi movement. You find the phobia that presumes that accepting parapsychology will bring about the end of science (I have never been able to follow that argument very well), and the petulance that just because some critics have not experienced these phenomena or they do not fit their cognitive schemas then those wanting to research them have to be cretins, spiritual fanatics, or worse. Related to this attitude is a more general arrogance in which some scientists assume that their current account of reality is final or close to final, and that any deviations from it are of course deluded, notwithstanding the history of science showing how “final” accounts of reality have been superseded by considerably different ones, and how much our capacity to know is limited by the nature of our receptors, our evolved limited rationality, and the nature of nature of nature itself. The anti-parapsychology movement has been very effective so far in marginalizing the field and exerted a very high cost on those who want to work in the field, with the main exception of Great Britain. The result is that there are preciously few researchers and theoreticians working in the area. As a comparison, a subfield of a subfield of a subfield, for instance the study of the P300 event related potential (ERP), attracts far more researchers, labs, and financial opportunities than all of parapsychology combined.
But there is also self-inflicted damage, in my view:
1) In agreement with at least one critic, there is a tendency among some (of the very few) researchers to go from one method or question to another, rather than to persevere with a promising question and conduct programmatic research on it to get a better comprehension, as is done by most successful mainstream researchers. For instance, at a recent PA I heard about a study that did not turn out as expected and the presenter explained why that might have occurred, but instead of testing that hypothesis in later studies, s/he declared that s/he would move to another question.
2) Considering parapsychology as an independent “discipline” is unrealistic. It is rather a cross-disciplinary topic of interest to psychologists, physicists, biologists, and so on. This has two consequences. The first is that it implies that psi research should be better integrated into larger disciplines (as researchers like Bem or theoreticians like Carpenter are doing), rather than remaining within a very small community. For instance, studies having both a psi and non-psi component are likely to make greater inroads than those just evaluating possible psi. The second is that, as with other topics, the greater the impact of the researcher in the larger discipline overall, the greater the likelihood that s/he will be heard by people not already commited to psi. For example, statisticians pay attention to Jessica Utts’s pronouncements about psi because of her general reputation as a statistician, not because of psi itself. Similarly, I have been able to publish papers on psi in mainstream journals probably because I am well-known for my work in other areas.
3) Considering the very meager resources in the psi field (and thanks to Bial, there are some rather than almost none), there should be far more inter-laboratory collaborations than is the case. For instance, I think that it is imperative to develop and test with a large number of participants a potential battery of task-related (as Rex Stanford has suggested) tests, psychological measures, and other indicators to determine who is likely to succeed in a psi experiment, and that this should be done as a collaborative enterprise. Even though I do not expect that we will find a strong indicator, even a moderate indicator would be of great help to increase our chances of evaluating phenomena more reliable.
4) Finally, I think that both extremes of granting unjustifiedly too much to critics instead of responding assertively to them, or claiming greater certainties about the nature of psi phenomena than are warranted does disservice to the field. In the first case it allows critics to get away with demonstrable falsehoods, does not require them to produce actual research to support their points, and does not discuss (the very real) limitations of psi research within the greater context of the limitations of empirical research in general. As for claims that we clearly understand psi phenomena, they crash against the reality of the field’s limited success in establishing the conditions under which results can be robustly replicated.
One final point is a problem that I have seen all too often in listservs and other specialized forums in which honest researchers who express doubt as to the evidence of some types of psi and/or point to contradictory evidence are personally attacked or assumed to be cognitively deficient. I know of at least one person who left the field because of this. Despite what I think is an idealization of people working in parapsychology as generally open and selfless, I have found the same dogmatism, egocentricity, and outright nastiness that I have observed in other groups. I am particularly aware of this since some members of the parapsychology community in Sweden started attacking me personally even before I arrived to Sweden, and they have continued their attacks now for more than 10 years, the longest and most malicious temper-tantrum I have ever witnessed.
Can you mention some of your current projects?
We (co-editors Etzel Cardeña, John Palmer and David Marcusson-Clavertz, with contributions from many of the most important workers in the field) just finished a major enterprise, an update of the 1977 Handbook of Parapsychology (Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century) that provides both a state-of-the-science account of psi research along with information on how to design experiments and analyze them statistically. The book is intended for those interested in the field as well as for beginning and experienced researchers.
One of my doctoral students and I finished recently the preliminary analyses and report of a study on ganzfeld, hypnosis, and the Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI), which we will submit to a journal within the next few months. Although we did not replicate a previous strong correlation between psi z-scores and experiencing an altered state of consciousness, we did replicate moderate correlations between psi scores and low arousal and more focused attention that Chris Roe and collaborators have found in their research. Our results were also consistent with the MPI. We have transcribed the sessions from this and a previous telepathy experiment and at some point will see if quantitative and qualitative content analyses can evidence a relation between specific mentations and psi scoring or missing.
I finished a paper that presents the case for considering anomalous experiences (and potential anomalous events including psi) as essential for any model of consciousness, to be published in a mainstream encyclopedia on consciousness. We (past or current doctoral students and I) have many papers recently accepted or under revision on such related topics as the influence of hypnotizability and dissociation on the stream of consciousness and mind-wandering, and dissociation, posttraumatic symptomatology, and attachment styles among teenage immigrants to Sweden previously exposed to traumatic events. Collaborators from other universities and I are working on papers on spirit possession in the Dominican Republic and posttraumatic symptoms among breast cancer survivors. And if I am unable to control my masochistic tendencies, I might also accept invitations to write two books on alterations of consciousness, psi phenomena, and their ontological and epistemological implications.
Other than that, I am planning to direct the extraordinary play Krapp’s Last Tape by Samuel Beckett in the fall as Artistic Director of the International Theatre of Malmö, and of course enjoy all of life with the spark of my life Sophie and our little ones.
Cardeña, E., Palmer, J., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (Eds.). (2015). Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Cardeña, E., & Facco, E. (Eds.) (2015). Non-Ordinary Mental Expressions. E-book Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
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., & Winkelman, M. (Eds.). (2011). Altering consciousness: Multidisciplinary perspectives (2 vols.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Cardeña, E., & Croyle, K. (Eds.) (2005). Acute Reactions to Trauma and Psychotherapy: A Multidisciplinary and International Perspective. New York: Haworth Press. Also as special issue of the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 6(2).
Cardeña, E., & Nijenhuis, E. (2000). Embodied sorrow. Special issue on somatoform dissociation. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 1.
Kirsch, I., Capafons, A., Cardeña, E., & Amigó, S. (Eds.) (1999). Clinical hypnosis and self-regulation therapy: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cardeña, E., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (2015). The influence of hypnotizability and dissociation on everyday mentation: An experience sampling study. Submitted for publication.
Cardeña, E. (in press). The unbearable fear of psi: On scientific censorship in the 21st century. Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Marcusson-Clavertz, D., Cardeña, E., & Terhune, D. B. (in press). Daydreaming style moderates the relationship between working memory and mind-wandering: Towards an integration of two hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Cardeña, E. (in press). Anomalous experience. In M. Velmans (Ed.), The Blackwell companion of consciousness, 2nd ed. London, UK: Blackwell.
Schaffler, Y., Cardeña, E., Reijman, S., & Haluza, D. (in press). Traumatic experiences and somatoform dissociation among spirit possession practitioners in the Dominican Republic. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.
Cardeña, E. (2015). On negative capability and parapsychology. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, & D. Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds.). Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Cardeña, E., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (2015). States, traits, beliefs, and psi. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, & D. Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds.). Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century (pp. 110-124). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Cardeña, E., Marcusson-Clavertz, D., & Palmer, J. (2015). Reintroducing parapsychology. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, & D. Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds.). Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Cardeña, E., Reijman, S., Lawaetz Wimmelmann, C., & Jensen, C. G.. (2015). Psychological health, trauma, dissociation, absorption, and fantasy proneness among Danish spiritual practitioners. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 170-184.
Cardeña, E. & Terhune, D. B. (2014). Hypnotizability, personality traits, and the propensity to experience alterations of consciousness. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 292-307.
Cardeña, E., & Alvarado, C.S. (2014). Anomalous self and identity experiences. In E. Cardeña. S.J. Lynn, & S. Krippner (Eds.), Varieties of Anomalous Experiences (2nd ed., pp. 175-212). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cardeña, E. (2014). Hypnos and psyche, or how hypnosis has contributed to the study of consciousness. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 123-138.
Cardeña, E. (2014). A call for an open, informed, study of all aspects of consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017.
Cardeña, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (2014). Anomalous experiences in perspective. In E. Cardeña, S. J., Lynn, & S. Krippner (Eds.), Varieties of anomalous experience: Examining the scientific evidence. 2nd ed, (pp. 3-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cardeña, E., & Pekala, R. J. (2014). Methodological issues in the study of altering consciousness and anomalous experience. In E. Cardeña, S. J., Lynn, & S. Krippner (Eds.), Varieties of anomalous experience: Examining the scientific evidence. 2nd ed. (pp. 21-56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cardeña, E., Jönsson, P., Terhune, D. B., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (2013). The neurophenomenology of neutral hypnosis. Cortex, 49, 375-385.
Cardeña, E., Iribas, A., & Reijman, S. (2012). Art and psi. Journal of Parapsychology, 76, 3-25.
Marcusson-Clavertz, D., Terhune, D. B., & Cardeña, E., (2012). Individual differences and state effects on mind wandering: Hypnotizability, dissociation, and sensory homogenization. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1097-1108.
Cardeña, E., & Alvarado, C.S. (2011). Altered consciousness from the age of Enlightenment through mid-20th century. In E. Cardeña and M. Winkelman (Eds.), Altering Consciousness: Multidisciplinary Perspectives: Vol. 1: History, Culture and the Humanities (pp. 89-112). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Cardeña, E., & Carlson, E. (2011). Acute Stress Disorder revisited. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 245-267. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104502
Marcusson-Clavertz, D. & Cardeña, E., (2011). Hypnotizability, alterations in consciousness, and other variables as predictors of performance in a ganzfeld psi task. Journal of Parapsychology, 75, 235-259.
Terhune, D. B., Cardeña, E., & Lindgren, M. (2011). Differential frontal-parietal connectivity during hypnosis as a function of hypnotic suggestibility. Psychophysiology, 48, 1444-1447. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01211.x
Moreira-Almeida, A., & Cardeña, E. (2011). Differential diagnosis between non-pathological psychotic and spiritual experiences and mental disorders: A contribution from Latin American studies to the ICD-11. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 33 Suppl. 1, S29-S36.
Cardeña, E. (2011). On wolverines and epistemological totalitarianism. (Guest editorial). Journal of Scientific Exploration, 25, 539-551.
Cardeña, E. (2011). Altered consciousness in emotion and psychopathology. In E. Cardeña, & M. Winkelman (Eds.), Altering consciousness. Multidisciplinary perspectives. Volume II. Biological and psychological perspectives (pp. 279-299). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Granqvist, P., Reijman, S. & Cardeña E. (2011). Altered consciousness and human development. In E. Cardeña, & M. Winkelman. Altering consciousness. Multidisciplinary perspectives. Volume II. Biological and psychological perspectives (pp. 211-234). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Terhune, D. B., & Cardeña, E (2010). Differential patterns of spontaneous experiential response to a hypnotic induction: A latent profile analysis. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 1140-1150.
Zingrone, N.L., Alvarado, C.S., & Cardeña, E. (2010). Out-of-body experiences, physical body activity and posture: Responses from a survey conducted in Scotland. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198, 163-165.
Cardeña, E., & Krippner, S. (2010). The cultural context of hypnosis. In Lynn, S. J., J. W. Rhue, & Kirsch, I. (Eds.) Handbook of clinical hypnosis 2nd Ed (pp. 743-771). Washington, D. C: American Psychological Association.
Cardeña, E., & Weiner, L. (2009). Trance/possession phenomena. In Dell, P.F., & O’Neil, J. A. (Eds.). Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond.
Cardeña, E., Dennis, J. M., Winkel, M., & Skitka, L. (2005). A snapshot of terror: Acute posttraumatic reactions to the September 11 attack. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 6, 69-84.
Cardeña, E. (2005). The phenomenology of deep hypnosis: Quiescent and physically active. International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 37-59.
Cardeña, E. (2005). Subjectivity and communitas: Further considerations on pain. In Mario Maj, Hagop S. Akiskal, Juan E. Mezzich, & Ahmed Okasha (Eds.) Somatoform disorders. Evidence and experience in psychiatry V. 9 (pp. 121-123). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cardeña, E. (2004). Introspection is alive and well: Current methodologies to study conscious experience. Proceedings of the 5th Simpósio da Fundaçao Bial. Porto, 43-54. Portugal: Bial.
Cardeña, E., & Gleaves, D. (2003) Dissociative disorders. In S. M. Turner & M. Hersen (Eds.). Adult psychopathology & diagnosis Fourth edition (pp. 476-505). New York: Wiley.
Cardeña, E., Butler, L. D., & Spiegel, D. (2003). Stress disorders. In G. Stricker & T. Widiger, (Eds.) Handbook of Psychology. V 8. (pp. 229-249). New York: John Wiley.
Van Ommeren, M., de Jong, J. T. V. M., Sharma, B., Komproe, I., Thapa, S., & Cardeña, E. (2001). Psychiatric disorders among tortured Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 5, 475-482.
Cardeña, E., Koopman, C., Classen, C., Waelde, L., & Spiegel, D. (2000). Psychometric properties of the Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire (SASRQ): A valid and reliable measure of acute stress reactions. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 719-734.
Cardeña, E., Maldonado, J., Van der Hart, O., & Spiegel, D. (2000). Hypnosis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 580-584.
Cardeña, E. (2000) Hypnosis in the treatment of trauma: A promising, but not fully supported, efficacious intervention. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 48, 221-234.
Litwin, R., & Cardeña, E. (2000). Demographic and seizure variables, but not hypnotizability or dissociation, differentiated psychogenic from organic seizures. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 1, 99-122.
Lynn, S. J., Kirsch, I., Barabasz, A., Cardeña, E., & Patterson, D. (2000) Hypnosis as an empirically supported clinical intervention: The state of the evidence and a look to the future. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 48, 235-255.
Cardeña, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (2000). Anomalous experiences in perspective In E. Cardeña, S. J. Lynn., & S. Krippner (Eds.), Varieties of anomalous experience (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Easterlin, B. & Cardeña, E. (1998-99). Perceived stress, cognitive and emotional differences between short-and long-term Vipassana meditators. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 18, 69-82.
Cardeña, E., Holen, A., McFarlane, A., Solomon, Z., Wilkinson, C., & Spiegel, D. (1998). A multi-site study of acute-stress reaction to a disaster. In Widiger, T. A. et al. (Eds.)Sourcebook for the DSM-IV. Vol. IV (pp. 377-391). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.
Cardeña, E., Alarcón, A., Capafons, A., & Bayot, A. (1998). Effects on suggestibility of a new method of active-alert hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 3, 280-294.
Cardeña, E. (1998). Dissociation and PSI: What are the links? In N. L. Zingrone, M. J., Schlitz, C. S. Alvarado, & J. Milton (Eds.). Research in Parapsychology 1993. Scarecrow Press: Lanham, Maryland.
O’Connor, B., Calabrese, C., Cardeña, E., et al. (1997). Defining and describing complementary and alternative medicine. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 3, 49-57..
Cardeña, E. (1997) The etiologies of dissociation. In S. Powers & S. Krippner (Eds.), Broken images, broken selves (pp. 61-87). New York: Brunner.
Cardeña, E., & Beard, J. (1996). Truthful trickery: Shamanism, acting and reality. Performance Research, 1, 31-39.
Cardeña, E. (1996). “Just floating on the sky”. A comparison of shamanic and hypnotic phenomenology. In R. Quekelbherge & D. Eigner (Eds.) 6th Jahrbuch für Transkulturelle Medizin und Psychotherapie (6th Yearbook of cross-cultural medicine and psychotherapy) (pp. 367-380). Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.
Cardeña, E., & Spiegel, D. (1996). Diagnostic issues, criteria and comorbidity of dissociative disorders. In L. Michelson & W. J. Ray (Eds.), Handbook of Dissociation (pp. 227-250) New York: Plenum.
Cardeña, E. (1994). The domain of dissociation. In S. J. Lynn and J. W. Rhue (Eds.) Dissociation: Clinical, theoretical, and research perspectives (pp. 15-31). New York: Guilford.
Cardeña, E., & Spiegel D. (1993) Dissociative reactions to the Bay Area Earthquake. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 474-478.
Cardeña, E. (1992) Trance and possession as dissociative disorders. Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review, 29 , 283-297.
Spiegel, D., & Cardeña, E. (1991). Disintegrated experience: The dissociative disorders revisited. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100 , 366-378.
Cardeña, E., & Spiegel, D. (1991). Suggestibility, absorption, and dissociation: An integrative model of hypnosis. In John F. Schumaker (Ed.) Human suggestibility: Advances in theory, research and application. New York: Routledge, 93-107.
Cardeña, E. (1989). The varieties of possession experience. Association for the Anthropological Study of Consciousness Quarterly, 5 (2-3), 1-17.