Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
Faith and intuition are intimately related.
Image: iStock/artpipi
Why are some people more religious than others? Answers to this question
often focus on the role of culture or upbringing. While these
influences are important, new research suggests that whether we believe
may also have to do with how much we rely on intuition versus analytical
thinking. In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of
Harvard University published a
paper
showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are
more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people
to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on
these findings, in a recent
paper published in
Science,
Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia
found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their
tendency to believe in God. Together these findings suggest that belief
may at least partly stem from our thinking styles.
Gervais and Norenzayan’s research is based on the idea that we possess
two
different ways of thinking that are distinct yet related. Understanding
these two ways, which are often referred to as System 1 and System 2,
may be important for understanding our tendency towards having religious
faith. System 1 thinking relies on shortcuts and other rules-of-thumb
while System 2 relies on analytic thinking and tends to be slower and
require more effort. Solving logical and analytical problems may require
that we override our System 1 thinking processes in order to engage
System 2. Psychologists have developed a number of clever techniques
that encourage us to do this. Using some of these techniques, Gervais
and Norenzayan examined whether engaging System 2 leads people away from
believing in God and religion.
For example, they had participants view images of artwork that are
associated with reflective thinking (Rodin’s The Thinker) or more
neutral images (Discobulus of Myron). Participants who viewed The
Thinker reported weaker religious beliefs on a subsequent survey.
However, Gervais and Norenzayan wondered if showing people artwork might
have made the connection between thinking and religion too obvious. In
their next two studies, they created a task that more subtly primed
analytic thinking. Participants received sets of five randomly arranged
words (e.g. “high winds the flies plane”) and were asked to drop one
word and rearrange the others in order to create a more meaningful
sentence (e.g. “the plane flies high”). Some of their participants were
given scrambled sentences containing words associated with analytic
thinking (e.g. “analyze,” “reason”) and other participants were given
sentences that featured neutral words (e.g. “hammer,” “shoes”). After
unscrambling the sentences, participants filled out a survey about their
religious beliefs. In both studies, this subtle reminder of analytic
thinking caused participants to express less belief in God and religion.
The researchers found no relationship between participants’ prior
religious beliefs and their performance in the study. Analytic thinking
reduced religious belief regardless of how religious people were to
begin with.
In a final study, Gervais and Norenzayan used an even more subtle way of
activating analytic thinking: by having participants fill out a survey
measuring their religious beliefs that was printed in either clear font
or font that was difficult to read. Prior
research
has shown that difficult-to-read font promotes analytic thinking by
forcing participants to slow down and think more carefully about the
meaning of what they are reading. The researchers found that
participants who filled out a survey that was printed in unclear font
expressed less belief as compared to those who filled out the same
survey in the clear font.
These studies demonstrate yet another way in which our thinking
tendencies, many of which may be innate, have contributed to religious
faith. It may also help explain why the vast majority of Americans tend
to believe in God. Since System 2 thinking requires a lot of
effort,
the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when
possible. Evidence suggests that the majority of us are more prone to
believing than being skeptical. According to a 2005
poll
by Gallup, 3 out of every 4 Americans hold at least one belief in the
paranormal. The most popular of these beliefs are extrasensory
perception (ESP), haunted houses, and ghosts. In addition, the results
help explain why some of us are more prone to believe that others.
Previous research has found that people differ in their tendency to see
intentions and
causes in the world. These differences in thinking styles could help explain why some of us are more likely to become believers.
Why and how might analytic thinking reduce religious belief? Although
more research is needed to answer this question, Gervais and Norenzayan
speculate on a few possibilities. For example, analytic thinking may
inhibit our natural intuition to believe in supernatural agents that
influence the world. Alternatively, analytic thinking may simply cause
us to override our intuition to believe and pay less attention to it.
It’s important to note that across studies, participants ranged widely
in their religious affiliation, gender, and race. None of these
variables were found to significantly relate to people’s behavior in the
studies.
Gervais and Norenzayan point out that analytic thinking is just one
reason out of many why people may or may not hold religious beliefs. In
addition, these findings do not say anything about the inherent value or
truth of religious beliefs—they simply speak to the psychology of when
and why we are prone to believe. Most importantly, they provide evidence
that rather than being static, our beliefs can change drastically from
situation to situation, without us knowing exactly why.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive
science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper
that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind
Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the
Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Daisy Grewal received her PhD in social psychology from Yale University. She is a researcher at the Stanford School of Medicine.
No comments:
Post a Comment