Academic Analysis: “Who Sees UFOs? The Relationship Between Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Sightings and Personality Factors” by Daniel R. Stubbings, Sophie Ali, and Alexander Wong (2024)

Academic Analysis: “Who Sees UFOs? The Relationship Between Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Sightings and Personality Factors” by Daniel R. Stubbings, Sophie Ali, and Alexander Wong (2024)

Full Citation Stubbings, D. R., Ali, S., & Wong, A. (2024). Who sees UFOs? The relationship between unidentified anomalous phenomena sightings and personality factors. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 38(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.31275/20243153 (Full PDF available via ResearchGate and the journal site).

Abstract (Verbatim from Paper)

“Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) have become a serious topic in the US Congress, and new legislation has been released outlining a plan for declassification for the public. There are numerous factors that could lead an individual to mistakenly think they saw a UAP, and one of those factors might be the proclivities of the personalities that observe what they think to be a UAP. This study examined the big five personality traits: extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, as well as schizotypy traits, to see if UAP experiencers could be distinguished from people who had not seen a UAP.”

Summary of the Study

This empirical paper, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Scientific Exploration, tests whether Big Five personality traits and schizotypy can reliably distinguish individuals who report UAP sightings from those who do not. Using a sample of 206 adults (103 self-reported UAP experiencers and 103 non-experiencers), the authors employed:

• Measures: Big Five Inventory (BFI), Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief Revised (SPQ-BRU), and a custom UAP sighting questionnaire.
• Analysis: Correlations, logistic regression, and latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify natural personality clusters.

Key Findings (with statistical support):

• UAP reporters showed modest positive correlations with openness (r = .23, p = .001) and conscientiousness (r = .20, p = .006), and a negative correlation with neuroticism (r = –.22, p = .002).
• Logistic regression: Higher openness and lower neuroticism significantly predicted UAP reporting (explaining ~11% of variance).
• Latent profile analysis identified three clusters:
  1. Average (54.9% of sample) — baseline traits.
  2. Neurotic/Schizotypy (14%) — high neuroticism and schizotypy.
  3. O-ACE (31.1%) — high Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion; low neuroticism/schizotypy.
• The O-ACE group was significantly more likely to report UAP sightings (64.9% vs. 44.3% in the Average group; χ² = 4.38, p = .036), though the effect size was small.
• Public UAP descriptions (shapes, behaviors) closely mirrored those in official military/AARO reports.
• Severe underreporting: Only 28% of witnesses reported their sighting anywhere; just 14% used a formal UFO organization. Primary barriers: stigma and lack of legitimate reporting channels.

Conclusion of the Authors: Personality factors are an insufficient explanation for most UAP sightings. The stereotype of the “neurotic” or “schizotypal” witness is not supported; instead, more stable, open, and socially engaged individuals appear slightly more likely to notice and report anomalous events.

Strengths of the Paper

1. Direct Challenge to Stereotypes The study rigorously tests (and largely refutes) the common cultural assumption that UAP witnesses are psychologically unstable or prone to misperception. This is a valuable corrective in a field often marred by pathologizing narratives.
2. Robust Methodology for the Topic Use of latent profile analysis (rather than simple group comparisons) is statistically sophisticated and reveals natural personality groupings. The balanced sample (experiencers vs. non-experiencers) and inclusion of schizotypy measures strengthen the design.
3. Practical Implications The underreporting data (86% unreported) is particularly important for policy. The authors correctly highlight stigma and lack of reporting infrastructure as barriers to better data collection and public safety.
4. Alignment with Broader Evidence The finding that public UAP accounts resemble military reports adds convergent support to the idea that these are not purely subjective or delusional phenomena.

Limitations and Critiques

1. Sample Bias Recruitment via Twitter/X likely attracted individuals already interested in UAP, producing a 50% sighting rate (far higher than general population estimates of ~5–10%). This self-selection limits generalizability.
2. Effect Sizes Are Modest Personality explains only a small portion of variance. The authors openly acknowledge that personality is “insufficient” for most sightings — a refreshingly honest conclusion.
3. Self-Report Nature No independent verification of sightings; reliance on retrospective self-reports leaves room for memory distortion, though the authors note this limitation.
4. Narrow Scope Focuses solely on personality; does not address other factors (cultural exposure, location, prior anomalous experiences, or actual stimulus characteristics).

Relevance to the Face Value Approach (FVA) and the Experiencer–Scientist Bridge

This paper provides strong empirical support for FVA’s core premise: premature dismissal of experiencer testimony on psychological grounds is unwarranted. By showing that UAP reporters are not disproportionately neurotic or schizotypal — and may actually skew toward more “well-adjusted” profiles — it directly counters the ontological threat and epistemic injustice discussed in the previous paper we analyzed (Engels & Hauser, 2025).

The data reinforce that Stage 1 literal acceptance is justified: the witnesses are not, on average, psychologically unusual. This strengthens the case for treating raw testimony as high-fidelity data while moving responsibly into Stage 2 testing.

Conclusion

Stubbings, Ali, and Wong deliver a clear, data-driven rebuttal to the “UFO witnesses are crazy” stereotype. While personality traits show weak predictive power, the study’s most important contribution may be its documentation of widespread underreporting driven by stigma. In an era of accelerating governmental interest in UAP, this work underscores the urgent need for destigmatized, accessible reporting mechanisms and continued rigorous, non-pathologizing research.

The paper is methodologically sound, transparently reported, and philosophically aligned with the balanced experiencer–scientist bridge we have been developing. It belongs on the reading list for anyone engaged in UAP studies, epistemic justice, or public policy on anomalous phenomena.

References

• Stubbings, D. R., Ali, S., & Wong, A. (2024). Who sees UFOs? The relationship between unidentified anomalous phenomena sightings and personality factors. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 38(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.31275/20243153 (Full text: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/3153 or ResearchGate).
• Engels, K. S., & Hauser, E. (2025). Epistemic injustice and contact experiencers. PhilArchive. https://philarchive.org/archive/ENGEIA-5
• Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.