Pub Date : 2020-07-07DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2020.1766868
H. Koenig, Terrence D. Hill, S. Pirutinsky, D. Rosmarin
{"title":"Commentary on “Does Spirituality or Religion Positively Affect Mental Health?”","authors":"H. Koenig, Terrence D. Hill, S. Pirutinsky, D. Rosmarin","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2020.1766868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1766868","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1766868","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43131656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2019.1707613
Heekyeong Park
What is the nature of the spiritual experience? In order to answer this kind of question, an interdisciplinary, multi-perspective approach is critical, given the complexity of spiritual experiences...
精神体验的本质是什么？为了回答这类问题，考虑到精神体验的复杂性，跨学科、多视角的方法至关重要。。。
{"title":"Neuroscience, Selflessness, and Spiritual Experience: Explaining the Science of Transcendence","authors":"Heekyeong Park","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2019.1707613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2019.1707613","url":null,"abstract":"What is the nature of the spiritual experience? In order to answer this kind of question, an interdisciplinary, multi-perspective approach is critical, given the complexity of spiritual experiences...","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2019.1707613","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43199843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2019.1696498
Filip Uzarevic, V. Saroglou
ABSTRACT Research adopting the ideological-conflict hypothesis indicates that low religiosity, nonbelief, and antireligious sentiments predict prejudice toward ideological opponents. How to understand this, from an individual differences perspective, given that nonbelievers are typically open-minded and low in authoritarianism? We investigated, among 422 UK adults, social distance from antiliberals (antigay activists), fundamentalists, and religionists of major world religions (Catholicism, Islam, and Buddhism). Nonbelievers showed prejudice toward all religious targets – but not toward an ethnic outgroup (Chinese). Furthermore, antireligious sentiment implied (1) valuing rationality and, in turn, social distance from fundamentalists and (2) low empathy and low belief in the benevolence of others and the world and, in turn, social distance from religionists. Finally, (3) valuing liberty predicted social distance from antiliberals but failed to mediate the effect of antireligious sentiment. Though general processes (e.g., perceived threat) explain all prejudices, specific individual differences seem to distinguish nonbelievers’ and believers’ prejudice toward each other.
{"title":"Understanding Nonbelievers’ Prejudice toward Ideological Opponents: The Role of Self-Expression Values and Other-Oriented Dispositions","authors":"Filip Uzarevic, V. Saroglou","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2019.1696498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2019.1696498","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Research adopting the ideological-conflict hypothesis indicates that low religiosity, nonbelief, and antireligious sentiments predict prejudice toward ideological opponents. How to understand this, from an individual differences perspective, given that nonbelievers are typically open-minded and low in authoritarianism? We investigated, among 422 UK adults, social distance from antiliberals (antigay activists), fundamentalists, and religionists of major world religions (Catholicism, Islam, and Buddhism). Nonbelievers showed prejudice toward all religious targets – but not toward an ethnic outgroup (Chinese). Furthermore, antireligious sentiment implied (1) valuing rationality and, in turn, social distance from fundamentalists and (2) low empathy and low belief in the benevolence of others and the world and, in turn, social distance from religionists. Finally, (3) valuing liberty predicted social distance from antiliberals but failed to mediate the effect of antireligious sentiment. Though general processes (e.g., perceived threat) explain all prejudices, specific individual differences seem to distinguish nonbelievers’ and believers’ prejudice toward each other.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2019.1696498","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42557784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-16DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2020.1771978
Peter C. Hill
This monograph (89 pages including references) will serve as a lasting tribute to its author, Paul J. Watson. Paul was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer shortly after agreeing to write a summary of ...
{"title":"Psychology and Religion within an Ideological Surround","authors":"Peter C. Hill","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2020.1771978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1771978","url":null,"abstract":"This monograph (89 pages including references) will serve as a lasting tribute to its author, Paul J. Watson. Paul was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer shortly after agreeing to write a summary of ...","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1771978","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41712828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-27DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2020.1746984
M. Lindeman, Pinja Marin, U. Schjoedt, M. van Elk
ABSTRACT The growing secularism generates considerable interest in the manifestations of religious unbelief. In this study, conducted in Finland, Denmark, and the Netherland (N = 4404), we asked participants which of the following terms best describes their religious/spiritual identity: religious believer, spiritual but not religious, spiritual seeker, atheist, anti-religious, agnostic, nonbeliever, secular, or other. We also examined the participants’ God beliefs and their attitudes toward religion. While connotations of identity terms varied considerably across individuals and countries, the nonreligious identification groups consistently differed in the strength and certainty of God belief, and by the valence, ambivalence, importance, and reflection of the attitudes toward religion. The anti-religious had the most negative and unequivocal attitudes, and the agnostics, seculars, and spiritual seekers had the most uncertain God beliefs. By associating distinct attitude profiles with non-religious self-identification labels, the findings improve our understanding of why people choose a specific label in surveys on non-religiosity.
{"title":"Nonreligious Identity in Three Western European Countries: A Closer Look at Nonbelievers’ Self-identifications and Attitudes Towards Religion","authors":"M. Lindeman, Pinja Marin, U. Schjoedt, M. van Elk","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2020.1746984","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1746984","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The growing secularism generates considerable interest in the manifestations of religious unbelief. In this study, conducted in Finland, Denmark, and the Netherland (N = 4404), we asked participants which of the following terms best describes their religious/spiritual identity: religious believer, spiritual but not religious, spiritual seeker, atheist, anti-religious, agnostic, nonbeliever, secular, or other. We also examined the participants’ God beliefs and their attitudes toward religion. While connotations of identity terms varied considerably across individuals and countries, the nonreligious identification groups consistently differed in the strength and certainty of God belief, and by the valence, ambivalence, importance, and reflection of the attitudes toward religion. The anti-religious had the most negative and unequivocal attitudes, and the agnostics, seculars, and spiritual seekers had the most uncertain God beliefs. By associating distinct attitude profiles with non-religious self-identification labels, the findings improve our understanding of why people choose a specific label in surveys on non-religiosity.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1746984","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42361471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-27DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2020.1753330
Anne Buch Møller, H. F. Pedersen, E. Ørnbøl, J. Søndergaard Jensen, B. Purzycki, U. Schjoedt
ABSTRACT The often touted positive association between religion and wellbeing is mainly based on evidence from cross-sectional studies. This is problematic because such studies tend to draw conclusions at the individual level despite reporting associations at the group level. In addition to this fallacy, inferences at the group level are also likely to be inflated by the social desirability effect, which may further exacerbate misrepresentations of the individual level. To avoid these pitfalls, we examined prayer-wellbeing (P-WB) associations and social desirability effects at both levels, using single-level and multilevel regression analysis on a longitudinal dataset. Weekly reports of prayer and wellbeing from 282 frequently praying Danish Christians, totaling 4254 complete responses, were combined with a comprehensive background questionnaire featuring a social desirability measure targeting the religious domain. A typical weak positive P-WB association was observed at the group level, which disappeared when controlling for social desirability. At the individual level, the average association across individuals was positive after controlling for social desirability. This overall relationship, however, conceals considerable individual variance with almost a fourth of the estimated individual P-WB associations going in the negative direction, emphasizing the need to be cautious when extrapolating group-level data to the individual level. These findings suggest that cross-sectional studies may oversimplify the P-WB relationship, especially, if the social desirability effect is ignored.
{"title":"Beyond the Socially Desirable: Longitudinal Evidence on Individual Prayer-Wellbeing Associations","authors":"Anne Buch Møller, H. F. Pedersen, E. Ørnbøl, J. Søndergaard Jensen, B. Purzycki, U. Schjoedt","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2020.1753330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1753330","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The often touted positive association between religion and wellbeing is mainly based on evidence from cross-sectional studies. This is problematic because such studies tend to draw conclusions at the individual level despite reporting associations at the group level. In addition to this fallacy, inferences at the group level are also likely to be inflated by the social desirability effect, which may further exacerbate misrepresentations of the individual level. To avoid these pitfalls, we examined prayer-wellbeing (P-WB) associations and social desirability effects at both levels, using single-level and multilevel regression analysis on a longitudinal dataset. Weekly reports of prayer and wellbeing from 282 frequently praying Danish Christians, totaling 4254 complete responses, were combined with a comprehensive background questionnaire featuring a social desirability measure targeting the religious domain. A typical weak positive P-WB association was observed at the group level, which disappeared when controlling for social desirability. At the individual level, the average association across individuals was positive after controlling for social desirability. This overall relationship, however, conceals considerable individual variance with almost a fourth of the estimated individual P-WB associations going in the negative direction, emphasizing the need to be cautious when extrapolating group-level data to the individual level. These findings suggest that cross-sectional studies may oversimplify the P-WB relationship, especially, if the social desirability effect is ignored.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1753330","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42875002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-27DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2020.1748932
T. VanderWeele
ABSTRACT Garssen et al. provide meta-analytic evidence, from longitudinal studies with control for baseline outcomes, for protective associations of religious service attendance and religious importance with subsequent depression. The present commentary considers whether or not these associations might be causal, and what the practical relevance of these associations might be. Further discussion is given to the methodological considerations that are important for advancing our understanding of the relationship between religion and mental health. More meta-analyses of the type conducted by Garssen et al. (i.e. restricted to longitudinal studies with control for baseline outcome) should be carried out with other health and well-being outcomes. To better establish the evidence base, cross-sectional studies should be excluded from meta-analyses.
{"title":"Effects of Religious Service Attendance and Religious Importance on Depression: Examining the Meta-analytic Evidence","authors":"T. VanderWeele","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2020.1748932","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1748932","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Garssen et al. provide meta-analytic evidence, from longitudinal studies with control for baseline outcomes, for protective associations of religious service attendance and religious importance with subsequent depression. The present commentary considers whether or not these associations might be causal, and what the practical relevance of these associations might be. Further discussion is given to the methodological considerations that are important for advancing our understanding of the relationship between religion and mental health. More meta-analyses of the type conducted by Garssen et al. (i.e. restricted to longitudinal studies with control for baseline outcome) should be carried out with other health and well-being outcomes. To better establish the evidence base, cross-sectional studies should be excluded from meta-analyses.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1748932","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48328929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-23DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2020.1744317
D. V. Van Tongeren, Emily Kubin, Jarret T. Crawford, M. Brandt
ABSTRACT Worldview conflict is a regular part of life. We typically encounter information that disagrees with or disconfirms the way we understand and make sense of the world. People usually respond negatively to such experiences; however, do responses depend, in part, on people’s individual religious beliefs or orientations? We tested whether religious orientation (i.e., intrinsic, quest, religious fundamentalism) and religious involvement moderated the effects of worldview disagreement. Employing an experience sampling design, participants (N = 328) from three institutions across two countries completed responses five times per day for three days. They indicated whether or not they had experienced any religious or political worldview disagreement and completed indicators of their emotional responses, well-being, and humanity-esteem. Results indicated that across most indicators, religious orientation does not moderate the effects of worldview disagreement. Rather, regardless of religious orientation, people responded similarly. We discuss implications and suggestions for future research.
{"title":"The Role of Religious Orientation in Worldview Conflict","authors":"D. V. Van Tongeren, Emily Kubin, Jarret T. Crawford, M. Brandt","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2020.1744317","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1744317","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Worldview conflict is a regular part of life. We typically encounter information that disagrees with or disconfirms the way we understand and make sense of the world. People usually respond negatively to such experiences; however, do responses depend, in part, on people’s individual religious beliefs or orientations? We tested whether religious orientation (i.e., intrinsic, quest, religious fundamentalism) and religious involvement moderated the effects of worldview disagreement. Employing an experience sampling design, participants (N = 328) from three institutions across two countries completed responses five times per day for three days. They indicated whether or not they had experienced any religious or political worldview disagreement and completed indicators of their emotional responses, well-being, and humanity-esteem. Results indicated that across most indicators, religious orientation does not moderate the effects of worldview disagreement. Rather, regardless of religious orientation, people responded similarly. We discuss implications and suggestions for future research.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1744317","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59730686","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-23DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2020.1748295
C. Kim, Sangwon Kim, Fran C. Blumberg
ABSTRACT We investigated the effect of immigration distress on Korean Americans’ life satisfaction, using attachment to God and religious coping as mediators. A sample of 214 participants was recruited from urban ethnic churches in various states, and they responded to online or offline surveys. There were two serial multiple mediation models (Models A and B) developed based on the attachment system activation model and empirical evidence. Each of the models included a pair of the two mediators: avoidant attachment to God and positive religious coping for Model A, and anxious attachment to God and negative religious coping for Model B. We initially examined the overall model fit as well as the direct and indirect effects using AMOS 21. Upon finding significant aggregated indirect effects, we examined individual indirect effects using the PROCESS macro for SPSS. Results demonstrated that Model A showed a poor model fit and Model B showed a good model fit to the observed data. Serial multiple mediation analyses provided some support for our conceptualization that distress activates the attachment to God system as an internal working model that is translated into religious coping as attachment behavior. As expected in Model B, distress was inversely associated with life satisfaction through anxious attachment to God and negative religious coping. Model A demonstrated rather complicated relations. The implications of cultural, theoretical, and methodological issues, with special regard to attachment to God and religious coping in Korean Americans as immigrants, were discussed.
{"title":"Attachment to God and Religious Coping as Mediators in the Relation between Immigration Distress and Life Satisfaction among Korean Americans","authors":"C. Kim, Sangwon Kim, Fran C. Blumberg","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2020.1748295","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1748295","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We investigated the effect of immigration distress on Korean Americans’ life satisfaction, using attachment to God and religious coping as mediators. A sample of 214 participants was recruited from urban ethnic churches in various states, and they responded to online or offline surveys. There were two serial multiple mediation models (Models A and B) developed based on the attachment system activation model and empirical evidence. Each of the models included a pair of the two mediators: avoidant attachment to God and positive religious coping for Model A, and anxious attachment to God and negative religious coping for Model B. We initially examined the overall model fit as well as the direct and indirect effects using AMOS 21. Upon finding significant aggregated indirect effects, we examined individual indirect effects using the PROCESS macro for SPSS. Results demonstrated that Model A showed a poor model fit and Model B showed a good model fit to the observed data. Serial multiple mediation analyses provided some support for our conceptualization that distress activates the attachment to God system as an internal working model that is translated into religious coping as attachment behavior. As expected in Model B, distress was inversely associated with life satisfaction through anxious attachment to God and negative religious coping. Model A demonstrated rather complicated relations. The implications of cultural, theoretical, and methodological issues, with special regard to attachment to God and religious coping in Korean Americans as immigrants, were discussed.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2020.1748295","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42514607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Within the cognitive science of religion, some scholars hypothesize (1) that minimally counterintuitive (MCI) concepts enjoy a transmission advantage over both intuitive and highly counterintuitive concepts, (2) that religions concern counterintuitive agents, objects, or events, and (3) that the transmission advantage of MCI concepts makes them more likely to be found in the world’s religions than other kinds of concepts. We hypothesized that the memorability of many MCI supernatural concepts was due in large part to other characteristics they possess, such as their frequent and salient association with moral concerns and the alleviation of existential anxieties, and that without such characteristics they would fail to be memorable. We report the results of three experiments designed to test the relative contributions of minimal counterintuitiveness, moral valence, and existential anxiety to the memorability of supernatural ideas. We observed no main effects for minimal counterintuitiveness but did observe main effects for both moral valence and existential anxiety. We also found that these effects did not seem to stem from the greater visualizability of morally valenced concepts or concepts that concerned existential anxieties. These findings challenge important claims made by leading researchers regarding MCI concepts within the cognitive science of religion.
{"title":"The Memorability of Supernatural Concepts: Effects of Minimal Counterintuitiveness, Moral Valence, and Existential Anxiety on Recall","authors":"J. Beebe, Leigh Duffy","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/qdh8y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qdh8y","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Within the cognitive science of religion, some scholars hypothesize (1) that minimally counterintuitive (MCI) concepts enjoy a transmission advantage over both intuitive and highly counterintuitive concepts, (2) that religions concern counterintuitive agents, objects, or events, and (3) that the transmission advantage of MCI concepts makes them more likely to be found in the world’s religions than other kinds of concepts. We hypothesized that the memorability of many MCI supernatural concepts was due in large part to other characteristics they possess, such as their frequent and salient association with moral concerns and the alleviation of existential anxieties, and that without such characteristics they would fail to be memorable. We report the results of three experiments designed to test the relative contributions of minimal counterintuitiveness, moral valence, and existential anxiety to the memorability of supernatural ideas. We observed no main effects for minimal counterintuitiveness but did observe main effects for both moral valence and existential anxiety. We also found that these effects did not seem to stem from the greater visualizability of morally valenced concepts or concepts that concerned existential anxieties. These findings challenge important claims made by leading researchers regarding MCI concepts within the cognitive science of religion.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41780000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：