实验室里的“幽灵”:信徒和非信徒对所谓幻影的隐性反应

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. Bering, Samantha Smith, A. Stojanov, J. Halberstadt, Ruth Hughes
{"title":"实验室里的“幽灵”:信徒和非信徒对所谓幻影的隐性反应","authors":"J. Bering, Samantha Smith, A. Stojanov, J. Halberstadt, Ruth Hughes","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2021.1975400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many nonbelievers may engage in supernatural thinking despite their statements to the contrary. Using belief in the afterlife as a test case, we examine, across two studies, the possible discrepancy between what people say they believe and how they reason implicitly. In Study 1, participants completed a mindfulness task during which a light went off unexpectedly. Half had previously been told that a ghost had recently been seen in the same room. Participants’ electrodermal responses and heart rate variability suggested implicit attributions to the “ghost,” and these physiological effects were unrelated to afterlife beliefs. In Study 2, compared to those in a control condition, participants who were informed that a ghost had been seen in the laboratory chose to sit further away from the alleged apparition. Surprisingly, this distancing was most pronounced among participants who did not believe in the afterlife. Cumulatively, the data indicate that self-report measures of supernatural belief may not fully capture private experience and implicit reasoning.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":"32 1","pages":"214 - 231"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The “Ghost” in the Lab: Believers’ and Non-Believers’ Implicit Responses to an Alleged Apparition\",\"authors\":\"J. Bering, Samantha Smith, A. Stojanov, J. Halberstadt, Ruth Hughes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10508619.2021.1975400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Many nonbelievers may engage in supernatural thinking despite their statements to the contrary. Using belief in the afterlife as a test case, we examine, across two studies, the possible discrepancy between what people say they believe and how they reason implicitly. In Study 1, participants completed a mindfulness task during which a light went off unexpectedly. Half had previously been told that a ghost had recently been seen in the same room. Participants’ electrodermal responses and heart rate variability suggested implicit attributions to the “ghost,” and these physiological effects were unrelated to afterlife beliefs. In Study 2, compared to those in a control condition, participants who were informed that a ghost had been seen in the laboratory chose to sit further away from the alleged apparition. Surprisingly, this distancing was most pronounced among participants who did not believe in the afterlife. Cumulatively, the data indicate that self-report measures of supernatural belief may not fully capture private experience and implicit reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"214 - 231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2021.1975400\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2021.1975400","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

许多非信徒可能从事超自然思维,尽管他们的声明是相反的。我们以对来世的信仰作为测试案例,通过两项研究来检验人们所说的信仰与他们的隐性推理之间可能存在的差异。在研究1中,参与者完成了一项正念任务,其间一盏灯意外熄灭。一半的人之前被告知最近在同一个房间里看到了鬼魂。参与者的皮肤电反应和心率变异性暗示了对“鬼魂”的隐性归因,而这些生理影响与来世的信仰无关。在研究2中,与对照组相比,被告知在实验室看到鬼魂的参与者选择坐得离所谓的幽灵更远。令人惊讶的是,这种距离在那些不相信来世的参与者中最为明显。累积起来,这些数据表明,超自然信仰的自我报告测量可能无法完全捕获私人经验和内隐推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The “Ghost” in the Lab: Believers’ and Non-Believers’ Implicit Responses to an Alleged Apparition
ABSTRACT Many nonbelievers may engage in supernatural thinking despite their statements to the contrary. Using belief in the afterlife as a test case, we examine, across two studies, the possible discrepancy between what people say they believe and how they reason implicitly. In Study 1, participants completed a mindfulness task during which a light went off unexpectedly. Half had previously been told that a ghost had recently been seen in the same room. Participants’ electrodermal responses and heart rate variability suggested implicit attributions to the “ghost,” and these physiological effects were unrelated to afterlife beliefs. In Study 2, compared to those in a control condition, participants who were informed that a ghost had been seen in the laboratory chose to sit further away from the alleged apparition. Surprisingly, this distancing was most pronounced among participants who did not believe in the afterlife. Cumulatively, the data indicate that self-report measures of supernatural belief may not fully capture private experience and implicit reasoning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (IJPR) is devoted to psychological studies of religious processes and phenomena in all religious traditions. This journal provides a means for sustained discussion of psychologically relevant issues that can be examined empirically and concern religion in the most general sense. It presents articles covering a variety of important topics, such as the social psychology of religion, religious development, conversion, religious experience, religion and social attitudes and behavior, religion and mental health, and psychoanalytic and other theoretical interpretations of religion. The journal publishes research reports, brief research reports, commentaries on relevant topical issues, book reviews, and statements addressing articles published in previous issues. The journal may also include a major essay and commentaries, perspective papers of the theory, and articles on the psychology of religion in a specific country.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信