Another limitation worth noting is how the “other” response option was accounted for in the PGT. A small portion (< 1.5%) of participants selected the malfunctioning survey option “other,” which did not allow them to describe their experience. These responses were counted as one illusion experienced. Since there were so few of the “other” responses, we believe this limitation is not influencing the results from our rather large sample (913 participants in total).
Lastly, we tested a non-clinical undergraduate population. This may explain why the cognitive-perceptual factor did not predict illusory percepts. Specifically, this factor assesses unusual patterns of thought (ideas of reference/suspiciousness, magical thinking, unusual perceptions) associated with paranormal belief (Betsch et al., 2020) and identifying meaning in meaningless stimuli (Riekki et al., 2013; Simmonds-Moore, 2014). This pattern of thinking would hamper performance in the university setting and it may bias our sample away from patterns that could exist in the broader population.