ABSTRACT

The idea that a more analytic cognitive style is associated with lower religiosity is a theoretical prediction that has been challenged by some empirical findings. We conducted three studies with Argentine participants (N = 719) to clarify this issue. In Study 1, we replicated the negative correlation between analytic cognitive style, measured with the Cognitive Reflection Test, and Belief in Supernatural Agents, Intrinsic, and Intuitive Religiosity. In Studies 2 and 3, participants responded to the Post-Critical Beliefs Scale which measures both the presence of a transcendent dimension in beliefs and the extent to which literal-vs.-symbolic beliefs are endorsed, and we also tested for individual differences in Need for Cognitive Closure. Results showed that a more analytic cognitive style negatively predicted both inclusion of transcendence and a literal interpretation of religious ideas. Moreoever, an analytic cognitive style was negatively associated with a literal but not with a symbolic inclusion of transcendence in beliefs. In turn, higher scores of closed-mindedness were positively associated with a more literal interpretation of religion. We conclude that present data support the hypothesis that religiosity may be negatively associated with an analytic cognitive style, but individuals who experience religion more symbolically do not accommodate to that pattern.

摘要

更分析的认知风格与较低的宗教信仰相关的想法是一种理论预测，已受到一些实证研究结果的挑战。我们与阿根廷参与者 (N = 719) 进行了三项研究以澄清这个问题。在研究 1 中，我们复制了通过认知反射测试测量的分析认知风格与对超自然因素、内在和直觉宗教信仰的信念之间的负相关。在研究 2 和 3 中，参与者对后批判信念量表做出了回应，该量表衡量信念中超越维度的存在以及文字与符号信念得到认可的程度，我们还测试了个体差异需要认知闭合。结果表明，更具分析性的认知风格对超越性和对宗教思想的字面解释都有负面预测。此外，分析性认知风格与字面意义负相关，但与信仰中超越的象征意义无关。反过来，更高的封闭性分数与对宗教的更字面解释呈正相关。我们得出的结论是，目前的数据支持宗教信仰可能与分析认知风格负相关的假设，但更象征性地体验宗教的个人并不适应这种模式。