IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0153039.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Gordon Pennycook
  • Robert M Ross
  • Derek J Koehler
  • Jonathan A Fugelsang

Abstract

Individual differences in the mere willingness to think analytically has been shown to predict religious disbelief. Recently, however, it has been argued that analytic thinkers are not actually less religious; rather, the putative association may be a result of religiosity typically being measured after analytic thinking (an order effect). In light of this possibility, we report four studies in which a negative correlation between religious belief and performance on analytic thinking measures is found when religious belief is measured in a separate session. We also performed a meta-analysis on all previously published studies on the topic along with our four new studies (N = 15,078, k = 31), focusing specifically on the association between performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test (the most widely used individual difference measure of analytic thinking) and religious belief. This meta-analysis revealed an overall negative correlation (r) of -.18, 95% CI [-.21, -.16]. Although this correlation is modest, self-identified atheists (N = 133) scored 18.7% higher than religiously affiliated individuals (N = 597) on a composite measure of analytic thinking administered across our four new studies (d = .72). Our results indicate that the association between analytic thinking and religious disbelief is not caused by a simple order effect. There is good evidence that atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordon Pennycook & Robert M Ross & Derek J Koehler & Jonathan A Fugelsang, 2016. "Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153039
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153039
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153039&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0153039?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna J Finley & David Tang & Brandon J Schmeichel, 2015. "Revisiting the Relationship between Individual Differences in Analytic Thinking and Religious Belief: Evidence That Measurement Order Moderates Their Inverse Correlation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:407-424 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:6:p:549-563 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Da Silva, Sergio & Matsushita, Raul & Seifert, Guilherme & De Carvalho, Mateus, 2015. "Atheists Score Higher on Cognitive Reflection Tests," MPRA Paper 68451, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:175-190 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    7. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina & Panadés, Judith, 2022. "Dispelling misconceptions about economics," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Souza, Tatiene C. & Cribari–Neto, Francisco, 2018. "Intelligence and religious disbelief in the United States," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 48-57.
    3. Jastrzębski, Jan & Chuderski, Adam, 2022. "Analytic thinking outruns fluid reasoning in explaining rejection of pseudoscience, paranormal, and conspiracist beliefs," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:476-498 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ângela Leite & Ana Ramires & Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis & Hélder Fernando Pedrosa e Sousa, 2019. "Who Is Concerned about Terrorist Attacks? A Religious Profile," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Gordon Pennycook & James Allan Cheyne & Derek J. Koehler & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2020. "On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: Implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 476-498, July.
    7. Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar & Niyanta Choudhary & Siow Ann Chong & Fiona Devi Siva Kumar & Edimansyah Abdin & Saleha Shafie & Boon Yiang Chua & Rob M. van Dam & Mythily Subramaniam, 2021. "Religious Affiliation in Relation to Positive Mental Health and Mental Disorders in a Multi-Ethnic Asian Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Das, Aniruddha, 2022. "Religious attendance and global cognitive function: A fixed-effects cross-lagged panel modeling study of older U.S. adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    9. Suzanne Hoogeveen & Julia M. Haaf & Joseph A. Bulbulia & Robert M. Ross & Ryan McKay & Sacha Altay & Theiss Bendixen & Renatas Berniūnas & Arik Cheshin & Claudio Gentili & Raluca Georgescu & Will M. G, 2022. "The Einstein effect provides global evidence for scientific source credibility effects and the influence of religiosity," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 523-535, April.
    10. Clinton Sanchez & Brian Sundermeier & Kenneth Gray & Robert J Calin-Jageman, 2017. "Direct replication of Gervais & Norenzayan (2012): No evidence that analytic thinking decreases religious belief," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-8, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    5. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:6:p:549-563 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:420-432 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:93-111 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Yigal Attali & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2020. "The False Allure of Fast Lures," Discussion Paper Series dp733, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:20-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:3:p:182-191 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:412-422 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Zamarro, Gema & Cheng, Albert & Shakeel, M. Danish & Hitt, Collin, 2018. "Comparing and validating measures of non-cognitive traits: Performance task measures and self-reports from a nationally representative internet panel," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 51-60.
    14. Becky L. Choma & David Sumantry & Yaniv Hanoch, 2019. "Right-wing ideology and numeracy: A perception of greater ability, but poorer performance," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 412-422, July.
    15. Carmen Keller & Christina Kreuzmair & Rebecca Leins-Hess & Michael Siegrist, 2014. "Numeric and graphic risk information processing of high and low numerates in the intuitive and deliberative decision modes: An eye-tracker study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 420-432, September.
    16. Krische, Susan & Mislin, Alexandra, 2020. "The impact of financial literacy on negotiation behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    17. Acar-Burkay, Sinem & Cristian, Daniela-Carmen, 2022. "Cognitive underpinnings of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    18. Skagerlund, Kenny & Lind, Thérèse & Strömbäck, Camilla & Tinghög, Gustav & Västfjäll, Daniel, 2018. "Financial literacy and the role of numeracy–How individuals’ attitude and affinity with numbers influence financial literacy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 18-25.
    19. Michele Graffeo & Nicolao Bonini, 2018. "The interaction between frames and numeracy in the evaluation of price reductions," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 35(1), pages 239-250, April.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:99-113 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Gordon Pennycook & James Allan Cheyne & Nathaniel Barr & Derek J. Koehler & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2015. "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 549-563, November.
    22. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    23. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    24. Siddiqi, Umema, 2023. "The Intersection of Financial Literacy, Cognitive Ability, and Numeracy Skills in Pakistani Adults," MPRA Paper 119781, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    25. Guillermo Campitelli & Martin Labollita, 2010. "Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(3), pages 182-191, June.
    26. Estrada-Mejia, Catalina & de Vries, Marieke & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2016. "Numeracy and wealth," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 53-63.
    27. Yigal Attali & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2020. "The false allure of fast lures," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 93-111, January.
    28. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.

    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:plo:pone00:0153039. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.