我的想法对你的想法:基督徒以自我为中心估计上帝和撒旦的态度

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL British Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2025-04-11 DOI:10.1111/bjso.12887
Joshua T. Lambert, William Hart, Danielle E. Wahlers, Justin Wahlers
{"title":"我的想法对你的想法:基督徒以自我为中心估计上帝和撒旦的态度","authors":"Joshua T. Lambert,&nbsp;William Hart,&nbsp;Danielle E. Wahlers,&nbsp;Justin Wahlers","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In addition to sources (e.g. scripture) that directly disseminate religious agents' minds (e.g. attitudes), an egocentric model suggests one's own mind may serve as a basis for estimating religious agents' minds. However, the egocentric model is rarely directly tested for inferences of religious agents' minds, and such tests have largely been limited to correlational methodologies, morally charged topics, and to a focus on God or Jesus rather than evil religious agents (e.g. Satan). To expand testing, we conducted two studies with Christians that addressed these limiting factors. In Study 1, correlational evidence supported the egocentric model in how participants estimated both God's and Satan's attitudes on moral topics. In Study 2, experimental evidence supported this conclusion and extended it to both moral and amoral topics: People estimated God's and Satan's attitudes differently as a function of a persuasion manipulation that changed their own knowledge on issues. These findings extend support for an egocentric account of how Christians can infer religious agents' minds.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"My mind to your mind: Christians egocentrically estimate God's and Satan's attitudes\",\"authors\":\"Joshua T. Lambert,&nbsp;William Hart,&nbsp;Danielle E. Wahlers,&nbsp;Justin Wahlers\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjso.12887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In addition to sources (e.g. scripture) that directly disseminate religious agents' minds (e.g. attitudes), an egocentric model suggests one's own mind may serve as a basis for estimating religious agents' minds. However, the egocentric model is rarely directly tested for inferences of religious agents' minds, and such tests have largely been limited to correlational methodologies, morally charged topics, and to a focus on God or Jesus rather than evil religious agents (e.g. Satan). To expand testing, we conducted two studies with Christians that addressed these limiting factors. In Study 1, correlational evidence supported the egocentric model in how participants estimated both God's and Satan's attitudes on moral topics. In Study 2, experimental evidence supported this conclusion and extended it to both moral and amoral topics: People estimated God's and Satan's attitudes differently as a function of a persuasion manipulation that changed their own knowledge on issues. These findings extend support for an egocentric account of how Christians can infer religious agents' minds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48304,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"64 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12887\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12887","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

除了直接传播宗教代理人思想(如态度)的来源(如经文)外,自我中心模型表明,一个人自己的思想可以作为估计宗教代理人思想的基础。然而,以自我为中心的模型很少直接测试宗教代理人的思想推断,这种测试在很大程度上仅限于相关方法、道德问题,以及关注上帝或耶稣,而不是邪恶的宗教代理人(如撒旦)。为了扩大测试范围,我们与基督徒进行了两项研究,以解决这些限制因素。在研究1中,相关证据支持自我中心模型,即参与者如何评估上帝和撒旦对道德话题的态度。在研究2中,实验证据支持了这一结论,并将其扩展到道德和非道德主题:人们对上帝和撒旦的态度的不同估计是说服操纵的函数,改变了他们自己对问题的认识。这些发现进一步支持了以自我为中心的解释,即基督徒如何推断宗教代理人的思想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
My mind to your mind: Christians egocentrically estimate God's and Satan's attitudes

In addition to sources (e.g. scripture) that directly disseminate religious agents' minds (e.g. attitudes), an egocentric model suggests one's own mind may serve as a basis for estimating religious agents' minds. However, the egocentric model is rarely directly tested for inferences of religious agents' minds, and such tests have largely been limited to correlational methodologies, morally charged topics, and to a focus on God or Jesus rather than evil religious agents (e.g. Satan). To expand testing, we conducted two studies with Christians that addressed these limiting factors. In Study 1, correlational evidence supported the egocentric model in how participants estimated both God's and Satan's attitudes on moral topics. In Study 2, experimental evidence supported this conclusion and extended it to both moral and amoral topics: People estimated God's and Satan's attitudes differently as a function of a persuasion manipulation that changed their own knowledge on issues. These findings extend support for an egocentric account of how Christians can infer religious agents' minds.

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
9.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.
期刊最新文献
Desegregating spaces: The interplay between ecological intergroup contact and GPS ‐traced spatial segregation among youth in two UK cities From curiosity to conspiracy: How epistemic motivation shapes competing ways of knowing Smiling across borders: Host culture members' reactions to happiness expressed by immigrants. Testing the socio-functional model: Does precarity cause conspiracy belief? But I'm not that kind of man! Perceived masculinity and threat shape gay men's group identification and ingroup attitudes
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1