IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v13y2018i3p268-274_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analytic atheism: A cross-culturally weak and fickle phenomenon?

Author

Listed:
  • Gervais, Will M.
  • van Elk, Michiel
  • Xygalatas, Dimitris
  • McKay, Ryan T.
  • Aveyard, Mark
  • Buchtel, Emma E.
  • Dar-Nimrod, Ilan
  • Klocová, Eva Kundtová
  • Ramsay, Jonathan E.
  • Riekki, Tapani
  • Svedholm-Häkkinen, Annika M.
  • Bulbulia, Joseph

Abstract

Religious belief is a topic of longstanding interest to psychological science, but the psychology of religious disbelief is a relative newcomer. One prominently discussed model is analytic atheism, wherein cognitive reflection, as measured with the Cognitive Reflection Test, overrides religious intuitions and instruction. Consistent with this model, performance-based measures of cognitive reflection predict religious disbelief in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, & Democratic) samples. However, the generality of analytic atheism remains unknown. Drawing on a large global sample (N = 3461) from 13 religiously, demographically, and culturally diverse societies, we find that analytic atheism as usually assessed is in fact quite fickle cross-culturally, appearing robustly only in aggregate analyses and in three individual countries. The results provide additional evidence for culture’s effects on core beliefs.

Suggested Citation

  • Gervais, Will M. & van Elk, Michiel & Xygalatas, Dimitris & McKay, Ryan T. & Aveyard, Mark & Buchtel, Emma E. & Dar-Nimrod, Ilan & Klocová, Eva Kundtová & Ramsay, Jonathan E. & Riekki, Tapani & Svedho, 2018. "Analytic atheism: A cross-culturally weak and fickle phenomenon?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 268-274, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:268-274_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500007701/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:268-274_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.