Jul-??-2004
X-Files Fan Club
Paint it (Frank) Black: Chris Carter

It goes without saying that we were thrilled when we learned that Chris Carter would be available to chat in conjunction with two high-profile DVD releases.

This issue, we kick off the interview with his thoughts on the first of those two releases, the debut season of Millennium.

Join us next issue for Chris on Harsh Realm, and two issues from now, we’ll get to the questions X-Philes have been dying to have answered, with the latest word from Chris on the upcoming X-Files movie.

But now, let’s return to the late 20th century and the early days of Chris’ second classic series for television, Millennium.

XFFC: Let’s talk about the genesis for the series concept. How did it evolve in the beginning?

CC: It came from an X-Files episode. There was an episode in season three called “Irresistible.” It was about a human monster rather than a supernatural monster, and it was a very successful episode. It was creepy and scary and disturbing. I thought, “This is interesting.” You can tell these stories about people who are among us and make a good scary show like The X-Files. So that’s what I set out to do. I had a character in mind that became Frank Black. The only thing I didn’t have was the concept of the oncoming millennium, but that later presented itself to me. So it was those three things: A murder mystery each week, the character of Frank Black and his cross to bear, and the upcoming millennium. Those were the three elements that made me interested in the show.

XFFC: You mentioned Frank Black, who was played by Lance Henricksen. What did finding Lance bring to the table?

CC: I wrote it for him. It was just a stroke of luck that I was able to get it to him. He was staying at the same hotel that we had all either lived at or stayed at during the early days of The X-Files. Luckily, I had connections there at the hotel, and I had someone slip a note under his door. I have to say, I did a little bit of extra sales pitching with him. But he was very receptive, and I think flattered. He loved the material and continues to. He and I have spoken about doing a Millennium movie, whether or not that would ever happen. Maybe it could, based on the success of this DVD release.

XFFC: So you had The X-Files up and running, and then you also launched Millennium. What was it like doing two shows at once? That must have been at least a little bit taxing.

CC: Yeah. I’d never done it before, so it was a trick. I wish I could tell you that I had a system, but mostly it was just that I worked like hell.

XFFC: Do you remember how many hours a day?

CC: It was crazy. You were never not working. We did the X-Files movie that year too.

XFFC: Unbelievable. Is there a moment or episode from that first season of Millennium that you’re most proud of?

CC: I have to say the pilot. It’s hard to come up with an idea that will launch a thousand episodes, but I think that I came up with the character and the idea, and you could see it. It only went 66 episodes, so it fell so much short of that goal. But the pilot sets up beautifully the world, the character, the objectives, and the obstacles, as all pilots should.

XFFC: Your shows seem to have a really strong thematic element to them. For you, what was the theme of Millennium? What was it about?

CC: It was about a person who was very good at his job, maybe even had a gift for it, and who had to make a choice between protecting his family and protecting the world. He had to weigh and balance and juggle both of those things as the millennium counted down. It began with the prospect of something terrible happening at the turn of the century, which we were all very nervous about in Y2K. That was interesting to me because it had been prophesied, not just in Nostradamus but in the Bible. There was power in those ideas, and I tried to use it as much as I could. What about a Millennium movie? what would that movie be, and what stage if any is the project in at this point? It’s only in the, “Gee, wouldn’t that be great?” stage. There’s been no talk about it, and I don’t know if there would ever be any talk about it beyond Lance and I saying, “That would be cool.” I actually have an interesting take on it, not even really a story, but an idea for how Frank Black would get into a movie. While there’s some inspiration, I don’t know if there will ever be opportunity.

Apr-16-2004
David Duchovny: He’s Funny! Honest
TeenHollywood
Lynn Barker

[Original article here]

He’ll always be known as Agent Mulder from “The X-Files” but actor David Duchovny is so much more. He’s very funny, which Mulder rarely was, he gestures when he talks and he is more interested in comedy timing than UFO’s.

In the new comedy film Connie and Carla, David plays Jeff, a really nice guy who falls for Nia Vardalos…in drag. Being a straight man, Jeff wonders why he’s so attracted to this drag queen. In casual blue tee and matching long-sleeved shirt, the actor buzzed in to our interview room at the Regent Beverly Wilshire hotel in Beverly Hills (where Pretty Woman was shot) and was willing to answer all questions, including those about another possible “X-Files” movie, his on-set pranks and his previous experience with being in drag.

TeenHollywood: Is this character Jeff similar to you? Or, having played a guy in drag, did you give advice to Nia and Toni?

David: I suppose Jeff is similar, but in my history, from “Twin Peaks”, I’m the one usually wearing the dress which is what I would’ve preferred, but they wouldn’t let me. It’s been 15 years since I did that and my a** isn’t as good as it used to be. There were real drag queens in this movie though. I’m just a dilettante, a dabbler. I’d done it and really enjoyed doing the character and thought I was decent at it. But these guys, they were real performers. I wanted to show them, I wanted the chance to dress up and dance and sing, but they wouldn’t let me.

TeenHollywood: Not even between takes?

David: Well, it’s really hard to all of a sudden bust out in a dress and a wig. It’s not something you can do, ‘just give me 30 seconds and I’ll come back with my own drag name’. No, it didn’t happen, but maybe if there’s a sequel, Connie and Carla and That Guy.

TeenHollywood: How did you get that famous “Twin Peaks” cross dresser role anyway?

David: That part was written for James Spader who knew the producers of “Twin Peaks”. And he, for some reason, had to drop out and they were desperately trying to cast the role and I think I came in on a Friday with an emery board. That was my big deal. That’s all. That’s what I did during the audition and it worked. I just remembered thinking ‘oh my God, I’ve never been in a dress or shaved my legs and now I’ve got to go do this on Monday’. And I had no idea what I was doing. I was thinking why, aside from sexual preference or liking to wear a dress, would a man want to be a woman? And I just felt well, you get to be more spontaneous and open and friendly. That’s kind of the approach I took. A very innocent, friendly kind of point of view.

TeenHollywood: Did you look hot?

David: (laughs) Not good. I had good legs, but as Bill Murray said in Tootsie, “Don’t play hard to get.” That’s probably what I would be told. (note: Hey, we saw him in drag on that show and he was cute!)

TeenHollywood: Talk about what attracted you to this role in Connie and Carla? There’s a nice relationship between Jeff and his cross-dressing brother in the movie.

David: I saw the fun kind of Cyrano part of falling in love with a woman that you think is a man, the Shakespeare in Love part and I thought that was a fun and classic comedy set up in a way, but on top of that or below that was this relationship with the brother… and I thought that was really interesting. One of the difficult things in trying to do the performance was to strike a tone in the movie and in the performances that could withstand both the wacky comedy aspect but also a very real kind of family situation and two brothers coming together.

TeenHollywood: Did you go try out for the role?

David: Well, we had to meet in the middle somewhere. They came to me to express interest but I think that there is always this thing where they wonder too if I was funny. They thought I might be funny, but they wanted to see me be funny. So I went and I was really funny. Then we did the movie. And I just look at auditioning as rehearsal, because there’s so little rehearsal that we get to do in movies. They spend millions of dollars and then the first time these actors are saying the words to one another is on film, and it’s ridiculous.

TeenHollywood: We hear you are famous for on-set pranks. Did you pull any pranks on this set?

David: I seem to remember that I gave Nia a Polaroid of my a**. I can’t remember why, or how I took it. Because when you do it in the mirror, it flashes out and you don’t get anything, because I’ve tried that 100 times. When I’d gotten to my trailer, they had already been up for like two weeks working and Nia had done something to my trailer, something bad. I can’t remember what it was but I had to avenge it. I saran wrapped her toilet seat at one point. You know that trick? It seems clear and it’s not and then you, you know. But she never said anything about that which leads me to believe- – well, we all know she doesn’t have to go. She’s perfect.

TeenHollywood: Okay, here come the “X-Files”questions. Do you still have to box your way out of being typecast?

David: For sure. I’m always joking with my manager about how people always say to me, “I didn’t know you were funny.” It’s just part of the baggage of being on a show that was that big. It doesn’t make any sense to run from it or deny it. It just is what it is, I’m proud of “The X Files”, I’m happy that it made so much happen for me as a person, as an actor. I wouldn’t want it any other way, but it also brings these other barriers. If you look at it the right way, it can be fun to overcome because you can surprise people.

TeenHollywood: Will there be another “X-Files” movie?

David: I think it definitely will happen. Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz are busy at work. They have an idea which they like and they keep threatening to tell me. I wish they would. They’re going to tell me soon. They’re just setting about writing it now, so we’ll be doing it in the next year.

TeenHollywood: How will the character develop?

David: I don’t know if Mulder should develop. I mean, Mulder is Mulder. That’s one of the things I learned fighting for the last three or four years on the show trying to change the guy or give him a French accent one day. The nature of the character and what I eventually learned to love about him is he’s set. He’s set and he’s a great character. So the great thing about Mulder is we know what he’s going to do and we know what he likes and what he loves and what he hates. We’re just going to play with that I’m sure.

TeenHollywood: Will the film start where the series left off?

David: I don’t know. My feeling about the second “X Files” movie was, since it’s going to come after the show is not running anymore, is that it had to be like a stand alone show with a really great part for a guest star, another actor who’s not part of the show. So apparently, that’s what Chris and Frank have is a great X-File idea with another actor or actress who can really score in a really great thriller/sci-fi role, so I hope that takes the show towards the fans but also towards new fans. And Mulder will wear a dress of course.

TeenHollywood: We’d pay to see that. Would you star in something opposite your wife Tea?

David: Tea and I have chemistry, obviously I think we do in life, but sometimes that’s a very sacred thing. We’re married and we consider our chemistry sacred. So in a way, if we were to act, it might feel weird exhibiting this sacred chemistry and in a way, we might be more inhibited as performers with one another than we are as people with one another, or it could be great, I don’t know. But it’s my feeling that I would feel a little more inhibited showing people what I feel about this woman because I feel like that’s my business. Whereas I can fake showing how I feel about any other woman. That’s my show business. That was well put, come on.

TeenHollywood: Connie and Carla are great musical theater lovers. Are you?

David: I can’t stand it. No, I kept saying I could dance as long as you don’t tell me I’m supposed to be dancing. I never was a big fan of musical theater. When we all did the big table read before we were going to start shooting, Nia and Toni had all these song cues and they had the actual song arrangements down and they sang. And at first, I thought, “Oh my God, this is going to take forever.” And it did. But, I kept turning to Nia and I go, “That’s a really good tune.” And she was just laughing at me because it was all these really famous tunes that I was hearing for the first time and I was like ‘That’s from “Cats”? Really? If I had to sit through three hours to hear that one tune, I wouldn’t do it but the good thing about this movie is it seems like they had all of the good tunes put together. It’s fun.

***

Lynn Barker is a Hollywood-based entertainment journalist and produced screenwriter.

Apr-??-2004
Dreamwatch
Lone Star

As one third of THE X-FILES loveable geek squad, The Lone Gunmen, Richard ‘Ringo’ Langly will forever be remembered for his flowing locks, huge IQ and love of Dungeons & Dragons. More than 10 years after he first stepped onto THE X-FILES set, actor Dean Haglund recalls his role as Langly and tells Kate Lloyd why he wasn’t *too* disappointed when THE LONE GUNMEN spin-off series was cancelled…

DW: What did you enjoy most about playing Langly?

The wardrobe! Seriously, I didn’t have to change a thing. The hair was real, I would just come in my jeans, change my T-shirt and I was ready to go. Everybody else had to wear leather or put on a suit or something, but I was in and out in a minute and a half. It was nice.

DW: Looking back, why do you think TXF became as successful as it did? Was is simply a case of right time, right place?

It was the right time. I believe the Germans call it zeitgeist. There was a moment in history where the Berlin wall had come down, there was an Israeli peace accord and there was no war on terror. For this 7 to 10 year gap there were no enemies. You could just sit in this kind of peaceful silence and go, “Oh yeah, up in space there are enemies. Oh, and I don’t trust my government.” And you had time to really enjoy this story. Now, if you came up with the idea of an alien hybrid invasion with your government against you, everybody would go, “Oh God, not again. Do I have to hear this?”

DW: As someone close to the show, did you have any idea where it was heading in terms of its mythology?

They kept that really under wraps. I think in the press they said they had a long, rich plan, but I don’t think it was that laid out really! [Laughs] It was sort of, “Well, we should eventually get to there, I guess, but in the meantime let’s just try to make crazy stuff.” So I really had no idea!

DW: Were you disappointed when TLG spin-off series was cancelled?

Not really, I think it was a great amount of time. I know the writers were particularly hurt because they were just laying out the groundwork of what they were planning to do, which was going to be *really* cool, and so they were like, “Aw, what a shame!” It ended too early for their part, but for me I was just thankful that we got to do 13 episodes.

DW: Why do you think the studio pulled the plug?

It was the year everyone was watching WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE, which was showing five times a week in America. I don’t know, these game shows!

DW: In the end, the Lone Gunmen went out in a blaze of glory in TXF season 9 episode, “Jump the Shark”. Was that a good way to go?

I thought so. If they hadn’t ended it that way we’d probably have been walking into the sunset with a stick and a bag in search of another adventure. And that wouldn’t have been the smart way to go …

DW: What was the atmosphere like on the set of the final XF episode, “The Truth”?

There was this sense of relief because the show was really long and hard to do. Some of these guys would see the sun come up every Saturday morning because they’d worked all Friday night, for months on end. They were thrilled to finally get their lives back. So while it was sad to see it go it was also like, “Thank God, we can go shopping at a normal hour again!”

DW: Do you think it was the right time to end the show?

I do. I think it could even have ended with season 8. But, at that point, those are the decisions that the network makes and one is powerless to argue against. Plus, the writers still had some cool ideas, and didn’t really want to fully wrap it up and get that Smoking Man …

DW: Season 8 of TXF is coming out on DVD this month. Where does that year rank for you?

This was the year we were filming the Gunmen spin-off, so it became quite the ordeal logistically because we were in Vancouver shooting the spin-off and TXF was filming down in LA. We either had to get on a plane and film an episode, or they would send scripts up and we would shoot these extra scenes and they would be cut it. It was very confusing trying to keep track of the storyline. One minute we were at Mulder’s funeral, next there was a baby. But it was a lot of fun!

DW: What kind of reaction did you get from fans to the last few years of the show?

I think round about season 8 a lot of people said, “No David? I’m out of here, see you later.” And so those two last years just sort of hung on. Because of [Duchovny’s absence] some fans sort of went, “Oh dammit!”

DW: Do you have any favourite XF episodes?

Oddly enough, my favourite ones are the ones the Gunmen weren’t in. Maybe this is my taste but I really like the Jim Rose freakshow circus episode, “Humbug”, just because it was those guys and I’d seen them in the bar doing their act and always enjoyed it. Oh, and “Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose”. From a Gunmen standpoint, I liked the flashback episode, “Unusual Suspects”. That set up how the Gunmen started and how we introduced Mulder to the concept of conspiracies. That was a lot of fun to do and that was the first all-Gunmen episode, so it was a real thrill for us.

DW: You guys were a big hit with fans. Was there ever a time when you were getting more fan mail than David Duchovny?

No. [Laughs]. He got a *lot* of fan mail. He would get all these girls painting him pictures — you know, ladies in sweaters and that kind of thing …

DW: What are you working on at the moment?

Where shall I begin? I did a movie called SPECTRES with [STAR TREK actresses] Marina Sirtis and Linda Park. I’m doing a lot of standup comedy and I’ve also invented a way to speed up your laptop computer without installing any hardware or uploading any software. It’s called the Chill Pak. It’s a simple little thing. It goes in your freezer and then you just whip it under your computer and it draws the heat directly away from the CPU. Time Warner Cable had just heard about it so they’re taking it to their regional meeting. We’ll see what happens.

DW: Finally, how likely is a second XF movie?

Well, Chris Carter is off surfing and climbing the mountains of the world at the moment, so I think the last thing on his mind is sitting around his computer. So it might be a little way off. I think they’re going to give it a little time so that fans can forget the Brady Bunch episode and move on!

DW: But it’s not a definite no?

It’s not a definite no. In fact, I know some executives at Fox are really looking forward to a second movie. So if they are the ones who have the wallet, then they make the decisions…

March / April 2004
Development of Beliefs in Paranormal and Supernatural Phenomena
Skeptical Inquirer Volume 28.2
Christopher H. Whittle

[Original article here]

A new study found high levels of fictional paranormal beliefs derived from broadcasts of The X-Files in viewers who had never watched The X-Files. An examination of the origins of paranormal and supernatural beliefs leads to the creation of two models for their development. We are taught such beliefs virtually from infancy. Some are secular, some religious, and some cross over between the two. This synergy of cultural indoctrination has implications for science and skeptics.

Two important findings emerged from a recent study I conducted on learning scientific information from prime-time television programming (Whittle 2003). The study used an Internet-based survey questionnaire posted to Internet chat groups for three popular television programs, The X-Files, ER, and Friends. Scientific (and pseudoscientific) dialogue from ER and The X-Files collected in a nine-month-long content analysis created two scales, ER science content and The X-Files pseudoscience content. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with statements from each program (such as, “Rene Laennec used a rolled-up newspaper as the first stethoscope” [ER], and “The Wanshang Dhole, an Asian dog thought to be extinct, has pre-evolutionary features including a fifth toe pad, a dew claw, and a prehensile thumb” [The X-Files].

My first finding, that ER viewers learned specific ER science content, is an indicator that entertainment television viewers can learn facts and concepts from their favorite television programs. The second finding was spooky. There was no significant difference in the level of pseudoscientific or paranormal belief between viewers of ER and The X-Files. This finding does not seem surprising in light of Gallup and Harris polls demonstrating high levels of paranormal belief in the United States, but the beliefs assessed in the study were fictional paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs created by the writers of The X-Files. Paranormal researchers ask questions such as, “Do you believe in astral projection, or the leaving of the body by one’s spirit?” My research asked, [Do you believe] “[d]uring astral projection, or the leaving of the body for short periods of time, a person could commit a murder?” A homicidal astral projector was the plot of an X-Files episode, but ER viewers were just as likely to acknowledge belief in that paraparanormal (a concept beyond the traditional paranormal) belief as were viewers of The X-Files!

Perhaps it is as Anderson (1998) pointed out in his Skeptical Inquirer article “Why Would People Not Believe Weird Things,” that “almost everything [science] tells us we do not want to hear.” We are born of primordial slime, not at the hands of a benevolent and concerned supreme being who lovingly crafted us from clay; we are the result of random mutations and genetic accidents.

Anderson cited quantum mechanics as a realm of science so fantastic as to have supernatural connotations to the average individual. Quantum physicists distinguish virtual particles from real particles, blame the collapse of the wave function on their inability to tell us where the matter of our universe is at any time, and tell us that in parallel universes we may have actually dated the most popular cheerleader or football quarterback in high school, whereas in this mundane universe, we did not. It is all relative. Ghosts are a fairly predictable phenomenon compared to the we-calculated-it-but-you-cannot-sense-it world of quantum physics. Most people will agree that ghosts are the souls of the departed, but quantum physicists cannot agree on where antimatter goes. It is there but it is not. Pseudoscientific and paranormal beliefs provide a sense of order and comfort to those who hold them, giving us control over the unknown. It is not surprising that such beliefs continue to flourish in a world as utterly fantastic as ours.

After researching the paranormal in an effort to discover why ER viewers might have the extraordinary paranormal beliefs indicated on their survey questionnaires, I constructed two models of paranormal belief from my research notes (heavily drawn from Goode 2000, Johnston et al. 1995, Irwin 1993, Vikan and Stein 1993, and Tobacyk and Milford 1983). Figure 1 shows the interrelationship between the natural environment, human culture, and the individual. The culture and the individual maintain General Paranormal Beliefs, which consist of at least four relatively independent dimensions: Traditional Religious Belief, Paranormal Belief (psi), Parabiological Beings, and Folk Paranormal Beliefs (superstitions). Individuals have cognitive, affective, and behavioral schema in which these beliefs are organized. Society creates and maintains paranormal beliefs through cultural knowledge, cultural artifacts (including rituals), and expected cultural behaviors. The “Need for control, order, and meaning” domain is speculative on the culture side, but supported by research on the individual side. The demographic correlates of traditional religious paranormal belief and nonreligious paranormal belief (see Rice 2003, Goode 2000, Irwin 1995, and Maller and Lundeen 1933) are highly variable and generally reveal low levels of association. It seems that almost everyone has some level of paranormal belief but scientists find few reliable predictors of these levels. [See “What Does Education Really Do?” by Susan Carol Losh, et al., Skeptical Inquirer, September/October 2003.]

A first step in future work is to identify the nonbelievers in paranormal phenomena and then explore why they are nonbelievers. Belief in the paranormal begins almost from infancy. We need to expand the research on the developmental stages of belief in the paranormal, and to do that we must study young children.

I have developed a linear model for the development of paranormal and supernatural beliefs at the individual level (figure 2). As children we are taught by parents and other adults (indoctrination by authority) about our culture’s beliefs and practices. Our elders’ teachings are filtered through hard-wired psychological processes. These include: control (magical) thinking, which allows a helpless infant to believe that he controls the actions of those around him (“Mother fed me because I pointed at her and smiled”), reducing his frustration level; psychological needs and desires, including making order and sense out of one’s environment, having an understanding of one’s place in the cosmos, feeling in control of one’s destiny, and having a fantasy outlet; and the desire to please and imitate adults.

Figure 2: Cultural and biological origins model of paranormal beliefs and experiences in the individual.

We are taught about angels, witches, devils, spirits, monsters, gods, etc. virtually in the cradle. Some of these paranormal beliefs are secular, some are religious, and the most pernicious are crossover beliefs, beliefs that are at times secular and at other times religious. Santa Claus, angels and vampires, ghosts and souls, and the Easter Bunny are examples of cross-over beliefs. Crossover beliefs are attractive to children (free candy and presents), and on that basis they are readily accepted. The devils, ghosts, and monsters are reinforced through Halloween rituals and the mass media. As the child matures, some crossover beliefs, called “teaser” paranormal beliefs, are exposed as false. Traditional religious concepts are reinforced as “true and real.” They give us Santa Claus and we believe in an omniscient, beneficent old elf and then they replace Santa with God, who is typically not as generous as Santa Claus and whose disapproval has more serious consequences than a lump of coal. We learn about God and Santa Claus simultaneously; only later are we told that Santa Claus is just a fairy tale and God is real.

In a synergy of cultural indoctrination and the individual’s cognitive and affective development, a general belief in the paranormal and the supernatural forms. Once we have knowledge of the paranormal, we can then experience it. One cannot have Bigfoot’s baby until one is aware that there is a Bigfoot, or aliens, or ghosts. In other words, you cannot see a ghost until someone has taught you about ghosts. Countervailing influences, experiential knowledge, and knowledge of realistic influence have little effect on paranormal beliefs because they are applied after the belief is established through cultural and familial authority.

The dismal statistics presented on the science literacy level of scientists and science educators by Showers (1993) argued against a rapid increase in science literacy. Scientists and science educators (1) have high levels of paranormal and pseudoscientific belief, (2) do not use their scientific knowledge when voting, (3) use nonscientific approaches in personal and social decision-making, and (4) do not have high levels of science content knowledge outside of their specific disciplines. How can we expect nonscientists to think and act scientifically if scientists and science educators do not? If we decide to mount a concerted program to disabuse the public of paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs, we must first ask if cultures can survive without paranormal beliefs.

The media may provide fodder for pseudoscientific beliefs and create new monsters and demons for us to believe in, but each individual’s culture is responsible for laying the groundwork for pseudoscientific and paranormal belief to take root. We can inform the public through dialogue in entertainment television programming about important scientific facts and concepts. We can inform the public in formal and informal science education environments, but we probably cannot greatly reduce paranormal belief without somehow fulfilling the needs currently fulfilled by it. Science educators must focus on what changes we can make and how to best make those changes. We must involve all stakeholders in the discussion of what is an appropriate level of science literacy. To paraphrase Stephen Hawking, then we shall all, science educators, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of why it is that pseudoscientific beliefs exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.

References

• Anderson, Wayne R. 1998. Why would people not believe weird things? Skeptical Inquirer 22(5): 42-45, 62.
• Goode, Erich. 2000. Paranormal Beliefs: A Sociological Introduction. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.
• Irwin, Harvey J. 1993. Belief in the paranormal: A review of the empirical literature. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 87(1): 1-39.
• Johnston, Joseph C., Hans P. De Groot, and Nicholas P. Spanos. 1995. The structure of paranormal belief: A factor-analytic investigation. Imagination, Cognition, & Personality 14(2): 165-174.
• Maller, J., and G. Lundeen. 1933. Sources of superstitious beliefs. Journal of Educational Research 26(5): 321-343.
• Rice, Tom W. 2003. Believe it or not: Religious and other paranormal beliefs in the United States. Journal for Scientific Study of Religion 42(1): 95-106.
• Showers, Dennis. 1993. An Examination of the Science Literacy of Scientists and Science Educators. ERIC Document ED 362 393. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Atlanta, Georgia.
• Tobacyk, Jerome J., and Gary Milford. 1983. Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment instrument development and implications for personality functioning. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44(5): 1029-1037.
• Vikan, Arne, and Erik Sten. 1993. Freud, Piaget, or neither? Beliefs in controlling others by wishful thinking and magical behavior in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology 154(3): 297-315.
• Whittle, Christopher H. 2003. On learning science and pseudoscience from prime-time television programming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico.

Christopher H. Whittle

Christopher H. Whittle holds a B.S. degree in Earth Sciences from the University of Massachusetts, an Ed.M. from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico.