考察元认知对思维方式的信任与超自然信仰之间的关系。

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Scandinavian journal of psychology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1111/sjop.12961
Valerie van Mulukom, Adam Baimel, Everton Maraldi, Miguel Farias
{"title":"考察元认知对思维方式的信任与超自然信仰之间的关系。","authors":"Valerie van Mulukom, Adam Baimel, Everton Maraldi, Miguel Farias","doi":"10.1111/sjop.12961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conflicting findings have emerged from research on the relationship between thinking styles and supernatural beliefs. In two studies, we examined this relationship through meta-cognitive trust and developed a new: (1) experimental manipulation, a short scientific article describing the benefits of thinking styles: (2) trust in thinking styles measure, the Ambiguous Decisions task; and (3) supernatural belief measure, the Belief in Psychic Ability scale. In Study 1 (N = 415) we found differences in metacognitive trust in thinking styles between the analytical and intuitive condition, and overall greater trust in analytical thinking. We also found stronger correlations between thinking style measures (in particular intuitive thinking) and psychic ability and paranormal beliefs than with religious beliefs, but a mixed-effect linear regression showed little to no variation in how measures of thinking style related to types of supernatural beliefs. In Study 2, we replicated Study 1 with participants from the United States, Canada, and Brazil (N = 802), and found similar results, with the Brazilian participants showing a reduced emphasis on analytical thinking. We conclude that our new design, task, and scale may be particularly useful for dual-processing research on supernatural belief.</p>","PeriodicalId":21435,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining the relationship between metacognitive trust in thinking styles and supernatural beliefs.\",\"authors\":\"Valerie van Mulukom, Adam Baimel, Everton Maraldi, Miguel Farias\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/sjop.12961\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Conflicting findings have emerged from research on the relationship between thinking styles and supernatural beliefs. In two studies, we examined this relationship through meta-cognitive trust and developed a new: (1) experimental manipulation, a short scientific article describing the benefits of thinking styles: (2) trust in thinking styles measure, the Ambiguous Decisions task; and (3) supernatural belief measure, the Belief in Psychic Ability scale. In Study 1 (N = 415) we found differences in metacognitive trust in thinking styles between the analytical and intuitive condition, and overall greater trust in analytical thinking. We also found stronger correlations between thinking style measures (in particular intuitive thinking) and psychic ability and paranormal beliefs than with religious beliefs, but a mixed-effect linear regression showed little to no variation in how measures of thinking style related to types of supernatural beliefs. In Study 2, we replicated Study 1 with participants from the United States, Canada, and Brazil (N = 802), and found similar results, with the Brazilian participants showing a reduced emphasis on analytical thinking. We conclude that our new design, task, and scale may be particularly useful for dual-processing research on supernatural belief.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian journal of psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian journal of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12961\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12961","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于思维方式和超自然信仰之间关系的研究得出了相互矛盾的结论。在两项研究中,我们通过元认知信任来检验这种关系,并开发了一种新的方法:(1)实验操作,一篇描述思维方式好处的科学短文:(2)对思维方式的信任测量,模糊决策任务;(3)超自然信仰量表。研究1(N = 415)我们发现,在分析和直觉条件下,元认知对思维风格的信任存在差异,总体上对分析思维的信任更大。我们还发现,与宗教信仰相比,思维风格测量(特别是直觉思维)与心理能力和超自然信仰之间的相关性更强,但混合效应线性回归显示,思维风格的测量与超自然信仰类型的关系几乎没有变化。在研究2中,我们与来自美国、加拿大和巴西的参与者(N = 802),并发现了类似的结果,巴西参与者对分析思维的重视程度有所降低。我们得出结论,我们的新设计、任务和规模可能对超自然信仰的双重处理研究特别有用。
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
Examining the relationship between metacognitive trust in thinking styles and supernatural beliefs.

Conflicting findings have emerged from research on the relationship between thinking styles and supernatural beliefs. In two studies, we examined this relationship through meta-cognitive trust and developed a new: (1) experimental manipulation, a short scientific article describing the benefits of thinking styles: (2) trust in thinking styles measure, the Ambiguous Decisions task; and (3) supernatural belief measure, the Belief in Psychic Ability scale. In Study 1 (N = 415) we found differences in metacognitive trust in thinking styles between the analytical and intuitive condition, and overall greater trust in analytical thinking. We also found stronger correlations between thinking style measures (in particular intuitive thinking) and psychic ability and paranormal beliefs than with religious beliefs, but a mixed-effect linear regression showed little to no variation in how measures of thinking style related to types of supernatural beliefs. In Study 2, we replicated Study 1 with participants from the United States, Canada, and Brazil (N = 802), and found similar results, with the Brazilian participants showing a reduced emphasis on analytical thinking. We conclude that our new design, task, and scale may be particularly useful for dual-processing research on supernatural belief.

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
Scandinavian journal of psychology
Scandinavian journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
102
期刊介绍: Published in association with the Nordic psychological associations, the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology publishes original papers from Scandinavia and elsewhere. Covering the whole range of psychology, with a particular focus on experimental psychology, the journal includes high-quality theoretical and methodological papers, empirical reports, reviews and ongoing commentaries.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology is organised into four standing subsections: - Cognition and Neurosciences - Development and Aging - Personality and Social Sciences - Health and Disability
期刊最新文献
Co-worker phubbing: A qualitative exploration of smartphone use during work breaks. Core self‐evaluations and perceived classmate support: Independent predictors of psychological adjustment Interpretability and clinical utility of the strength and stressors in parenting questionnaire Sex workers' professional agency, quality of life, and problematic substance use in Finland Not exactly twins: Authoritarians and populists differ in their attitudes toward trust in government, elitism, pluralism, political identification, and identity fusion
×
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:481959085
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