分析性认知风格负向预测一种更字面化而非象征化的宗教虔诚类型

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
E. Freidin, Luz Acera Martini
{"title":"分析性认知风格负向预测一种更字面化而非象征化的宗教虔诚类型","authors":"E. Freidin, Luz Acera Martini","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2020.1868197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":"32 1","pages":"31 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1868197","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Analytic Cognitive Style Negatively Predicts a More Literal but Not a More Symbolic Religiosity Type\",\"authors\":\"E. Freidin, Luz Acera Martini\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10508619.2020.1868197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"31 - 52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1868197\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1868197\",\"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/10.1080/10508619.2020.1868197","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: 3

摘要

摘要:更具分析性的认知风格与较低的宗教信仰有关,这是一种理论预测,但受到了一些实证研究的挑战。我们对阿根廷参与者(N=719)进行了三项研究,以澄清这一问题。在研究1中,我们复制了用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,参与者对后批判信仰量表做出了回应,该量表测量了信仰中超验维度的存在以及文学与文学的对比程度-象征性信仰得到认可,我们还测试了认知闭合需求的个体差异。结果表明,更具分析性的认知风格对超越和宗教思想的字面解释都有负面预测。更重要的是,分析认知风格与字面意义上的超越负相关,而与信仰中的超越象征性包含无关。反过来,更高分数的封闭心态与对宗教的更字面的解释呈正相关。我们得出的结论是,目前的数据支持这样一种假设,即宗教信仰可能与分析认知风格负相关,但更具象征性地体验宗教的个人并不适应这种模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Analytic Cognitive Style Negatively Predicts a More Literal but Not a More Symbolic Religiosity Type
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.
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