Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The basis of belief : the cognitive and cultural foundations of supernatural belief Willard, Aiyana K. 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_september_willard_aiyana.pdf [ 3.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0166484.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166484-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166484-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166484-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166484-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166484-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166484-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0166484-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0166484.ris

Full Text

!!!!!THE!BASIS!OF!BELIEF:!!THE!COGNITIVE!AND!CULTURAL!FOUNDATIONS!OF!SUPERNATURAL!BELIEFS!!!! by!!AIYANA!K.!WILLARD!!! BA,!The!University!of!British!Columbia,!2007!MA,!The!University!of!British!Columbia,!2011!!!DISSERTATION!SUBMITTED!IN!PARTIAL!FULFILLMENT!OF!THE!REQUIREMENTS!FOR!THE!DEGREE!OF!!!DOCTOR!OF!PHILOSOPHY!!in!THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Psychology) !!THE!UNIVERSITY!OF!BRITISH!COLUMBIA!!(Vancouver)!!August!2015!!!!!!!! ©"Aiyana!K.!Willard!2015!!! !! ii!Abstract(!In!this!dissertation!I!explore!the!relative!roles!of!cognition!and!culture!play!as!the!foundations!of!religious!and!supernatural!belief.!On!the!cognitive!side,!theories!of!religion!have!postulated!several!cognitive!biases!that!predispose!human!minds!towards!supernatural!belief.!However,!to!this!date,!very!little!empirical!evidence!exists!to!show!how!these!hypotheses!preform!in!predicting!actual!religious!beliefs.!I!explore!these!biases!and!how!they!interrelate!to!support!supernatural!beliefs!using!individual!difference!measures!across!several!large!samples!from!Canada,!the!US,!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia.!!On!the!cultural!side,!I!look!at!how!different!theories!of!secularization!and!the!CREDs!theory!of!cultural!learning!support!supernatural!belief!and!religious!practice.!I!compare!these!effects!of!culture!to!the!effects!of!cognition!and!find!that!cognitive!biases!support!supernatural!belief!generally,!but!these!effects!are!stronger!for!paranormal!beliefs!than!religious!ones!and!are!almost!non[existence!for!religious!practice.!Religious!belief!and!practice!are!largely!supported!by!social!and!cultural!factors.!Finally,!I!compare!religious!and!non[religious!participants!to!spiritual!but!not!religious!(SBNR)!participants!to!further!break!down!the!differences!between!religious!and!non[religious!supernatural!beliefs!and!religious!practice.!I!find!that!the!SBNR!are!more!like!the!religious!than!the!non[religious!but!can!still!be!identified!as!a!unique!group!in!terms!of!cognition!and!culture.!!! (! iii!Preface(! All!of!the!work!presented!in!this!dissertation!was!conducted!in!the!MECC!lab!at!the!University!of!British!Columbia,!Point!Grey!campus.!The!University!of!British!Columbia’s!Research!Ethics!Board!approved!all!projects!and!associated!methods!were!approved!by![certificates!#!H12[01325!and!#H14[00320].!!A!version!of!Chapter!2!has!been!published![Willard,!A.!K.,!&!Norenzayan,!A.!(2013).!Cognitive!biases!explain!religious!belief,!paranormal!belief,!and!belief!in!life's!purpose.!Cognition,!129(2),!379–391].!I!was!responsible!for!the!conceptual!design!of!the!study,!data!collection!and!analysis,!as!well!as!manuscript!composition.!Ara!Norenzayan!was!the!supervisory!author!on!this!project!and!was!involved!throughout!the!project!in!project!planning!and!writing!the!manuscript.!Part!of!this!manuscript!was!used!in!Chapter!1,!section!1.3.!!The!projects!presented!in!Chapter!3!and!4!were!done!in!collaboration!with!Lubomir!Cingl!and!Ara!Norenzayan.!For!chapter!3,!both!collaborators!were!involved!in!concept!formation!of!the!study.!Lubomir!Cingl!participated!in!the!design!of!the!questionnaires!and!data!collection.!I!was!responsible!for!composition!of!the!manuscript.!Ara!Norenzayan!was!the!supervisory!author!on!this!project!and!was!involved!throughout!the!project.!!For!chapter!4,!Ara!Norenzayan!and!I!were!involved!in!concept!formation!of!the!study.!I!was!responsible!for!the!conceptual!design!of!the!study,!and!analysis,!as!well!as!manuscript!composition.!Lubomir!Cingl!aided!in!the!data!collection.!Ara!Norenzayan!was!the!supervisory!author!on!this!project!and!was!involved!throughout!the!project!in!project!planning!and!writing!the!manuscript.!!! iv!Table(of(Contents(Abstract"......................................................................................................................................."ii!Preface"......................................................................................................................................."iii!Table"of"Contents"...................................................................................................................."iv!List"of"Tables".........................................................................................................................."vii!List"of"Figures"........................................................................................................................"viii!Acknowledgments".................................................................................................................."ix!Chapter"1:! Introduction"......................................................................................................"1!1.1! Separating"Belief"from"Practice"........................................................................................"2!1.2! The"Cognitive"Basis"of"Religious"Belief"..........................................................................."6!1.3! The"Influence"of"Context"and"Culture"..........................................................................."12!1.4! Individual"Difference".........................................................................................................."15!1.5! Summary"of"Chapters"........................................................................................................."17!Chapter"2:! Cognitive"Biases"of"Supernatural"and"Religious"Belief"..................."19!2.1! Introduction".........................................................................................................................."19!2.1.1! Overview!of!the!Present!Study!................................................................................................!21!2.1.2! Cognitive!Theories!of!Religious!Belief!.................................................................................!22!2.1.3! The!Role!of!Cultural!Learning!in!Religion!..........................................................................!22!2.1.4! Religious!Belief!..............................................................................................................................!23!2.2! Method"....................................................................................................................................."24!2.2.1! Participants!.....................................................................................................................................!24!2.2.2! Materials!...........................................................................................................................................!25!2.3! Results"....................................................................................................................................."29!2.3.1! Rationale!for!Statistical!Analyses!...........................................................................................!29!2.3.2! Sample!1!...........................................................................................................................................!30!2.3.3! Sample!2!...........................................................................................................................................!34!2.3.4! Preliminary!Summary!.................................................................................................................!37!2.3.5! Alternative!Models!.......................................................................................................................!38!2.4! Discussion".............................................................................................................................."40!2.4.1! Dualism!as!a!Key!Intuition!Underlying!Religious!Beliefs!............................................!41!2.4.2! The!Role!of!Anthropomorphism!............................................................................................!42!2.4.3! Teleology!..........................................................................................................................................!43!2.4.4! Life’s!Purpose!and!Belief!in!God!.............................................................................................!44!2.4.5! Limitations!and!Future!Directions!........................................................................................!44!Chapter"3:! Secularization"and"the"Spiritual"Marketplace"in"the"Czech"Republic"and"Slovakia"........................................................................................................."46!3.1! Introduction".........................................................................................................................."46!3.1.1! Czech!and!Slovakia!.......................................................................................................................!53!3.1.2! Historical!and!Cultural!Difference!.........................................................................................!54!3.1.3! Current!Research!..........................................................................................................................!56!3.2! Methods"..................................................................................................................................."59!3.2.1! Belief!and!Practice!........................................................................................................................!59!3.2.2! Participants!.....................................................................................................................................!60!3.2.3! Religious!Profiles!of!the!Two!Countries!..............................................................................!60!! v!3.3! Analysis"1:"Cognitive"Biases"as"a"Basis"for"Belief"......................................................"62!3.3.1! Materials!...........................................................................................................................................!64!3.3.2! Results!...............................................................................................................................................!64!3.3.3! Discussion!........................................................................................................................................!70!3.4! Analysis"2:"Institutional"Trust"and"the"Existential"Anxiety"Hypothesis"............"72!3.4.1! Materials!...........................................................................................................................................!74!3.4.2! Results!...............................................................................................................................................!75!3.4.3! Discussion!........................................................................................................................................!79!3.5! Analysis"3:"Cultural"Transmission"................................................................................."80!3.5.1! Material!.............................................................................................................................................!81!3.5.2! Results!...............................................................................................................................................!82!3.5.3! Discussion!........................................................................................................................................!85!3.6! Analysis"4:"Combined"Model"............................................................................................"87!3.6.1! Results!...............................................................................................................................................!88!3.6.2! Discussion!........................................................................................................................................!88!3.7! General"Discussion".............................................................................................................."89!Chapter"4:! “Spiritual"But"Not"Religious”:"cognition"and"conversion"in"understanding"alternative"beliefs."................................................................................."92!4.1! Introduction".........................................................................................................................."92!4.1.1! Why!Study!the!SBNR?!.................................................................................................................!94!4.1.2! The!Importance!of!Cultural!Learning!in!Supporting!Religious!Beliefs!..................!96!4.1.3! Current!Research!..........................................................................................................................!97!4.2! Methods"..................................................................................................................................."99!4.2.1! Participants!.....................................................................................................................................!99!4.2.2! Materials!.........................................................................................................................................!101!4.2.3! Measures!.........................................................................................................................................!101!4.3! Analysis"1:"Predicting"Group"Affiliation"from"Cognitive"Biases"........................"103!4.3.1! Results!.............................................................................................................................................!103!4.3.2! Discussion!......................................................................................................................................!106!4.4! Analysis"2:"Differences"in"Supernatural"Beliefs"....................................................."109!4.4.1! Results!.............................................................................................................................................!110!4.4.2! Discussion!......................................................................................................................................!113!4.5! Analysis"3:"Effects"of"Upbringing"and"Conversion"on"Current"Beliefs"............"116!4.5.1! Results!.............................................................................................................................................!117!4.5.2! Discussion!......................................................................................................................................!119!4.6! Analysis"4:"Cognitive"Biases"and"Conversion".........................................................."121!4.6.1! Results!.............................................................................................................................................!121!4.6.2! Discussion!......................................................................................................................................!125!4.7! General"Discussion"..........................................................................................................."126!Chapter"5:! Conclusion"...................................................................................................."129!5.1! Mentalizing"........................................................................................................................."131!5.2! Anthropomorphism"........................................................................................................."133!5.3! Dualism"................................................................................................................................"136!5.4! Teleology"............................................................................................................................."137!5.5! Supernatural"Causal"Reasoning"..................................................................................."140!5.6! The"Cultural"Basis"of"Belief"..........................................................................................."142!5.7! Implications"for"the"Cognitive"Science"of"Religion"................................................"144!5.8! Butterfly"Collecting".........................................................................................................."145!! vi!Bibliography"........................................................................................................................."147!Appendix"A:"..........................................................................................................................."172!!!! (! vii!List(of(Tables(!Table!2.1![!Demographic!Characteristics!of!Participants!.......................................................!25!Table!2.2!–!Correlation!matrix,!student!Canadian!sample;!N=492!(reliabilities!in!the!diagonal).!...........................................................................................................................................!31!Table!2.3![!Mean!and!standard!deviations!for!both!samples.!...............................................!31!Table!2.4!–!Correlation!matrix,!adult!American!sample;!N=920!(reliabilities!in!the!diagonal).!...........................................................................................................................................!35!Table!2.5!–!Male!and!female!mean!differences,!adult!sample.!.............................................!36!Table!3.1:!Cognitive!Biases!Predicting!Belief!and!Practice!...................................................!68!Table!3.2:!Cognitive!biases!predicting!belief!in!God!within!country!................................!70!Table!3.3:!Means!and!effect!sizes!for!all!insecurity!variables!..............................................!76!Table!3.4:!Perceptions!of!Insecurity!and!institutions!predicting!practice!and!belief!78!Table!3.5:!CREDs!predicting!practice!and!beliefs!......................................................................!84!Table!3.6:!CREDS!predicting!the!probability!of!remaining!religious!or!becoming!SBNR!....................................................................................................................................................!84!Table!3.7:!All!variables!predicting!religious!practice!and!belief!.........................................!88!Table!4.1:!Demographics!...................................................................................................................!100!Table!4.2:!Cognitive!biases!predicting!belief!in!each!country……………………………………105!Table!4.3:!Cognitive!biases!predicting!ratings!of!“spiritual”!and!“religious”!across!all!three!countries!.............................................................................................................................!106!Table!4.4:!Group!differences!in!belief!..........................................................................................!111!Table!4.5:!How!participants!were!raised!predicting!current!belief!...............................!119!Table!4.6:!Rates!of!conversion,!as!percentage!of!sample!total!!and!of!those!raised!in!each!category!................................................................................................................................!122!Table!4.7:!Multinomial!logistic!regression!predicting!conversion!from!cognitive!biases……………………………………………………………………………………………………..!125!!! !! viii!List(of(Figures(!Figure!2.1:!Student!Sample!using!the!IDAQ!scale!as!a!measure!of!anthropomorphism.!Yuan[Bentler!X2(4,!N=492)=6.71,+p=.15;!CFI=.99;!RMSEA=.04.).!*p<.05.!...................................................................................................................!32!Figure!2.2:!Student!Sample!with!anthropomorphic!pictures!measure.!Yuan[Bentler!X2(4,!N=492)=6.19,+p=.19;!CFI=.99;!RMSEA=.03).!*p<.05.!...........................................!34!Figure!2.3:!Adult!American!Sample.!(Yuan[Bentler!Χ2(4,!N=920)=8.25,+p=.08;!CFI!=!.99;!RMSEA=.03).!*p<.05.!............................................................................................................!36!Figure!2.4:!Adult!American!Sample,!with!the!percentage!of!religious!adherents!in!local!area!(county!level)!as!an!additional!variable.!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(9)=10.80,+p=.29;!CFI=.99;!RMSEA=.02).!*p<.05.!....................................................................................!38!Figure!2.5:!Reverse!Causation!Model,!Adult!American!Sample,!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(4)=21.38,!p<.001,!CFI=.99,!RMSEA=.07)!.......................................................................!40!Figure!3.1:!Percentage!of!Religiously!affiliated!based!on!census!data!from!3!countries.!The!data!from!1970!is!an!estimate!from!the!World!Christian!Encyclopedia!(D.!Barrett,!2001).!.............................................................................................!56!Figure!3.2:!Percentage!of!participants!from!each!country!for!each!type!of!belief,!based!on!forced!choice!answers.!Percentages!are!in!parenthesis.!...........................!61!Figure!3.3:!The!path!model!across!both!countries.!Yuan[Bentler!Χ2(9,!N!=!1916)!=!97.38,+p+<!0.001;!CFI!=!0.95;!RMSEA!=!0.07.!This!is!a!modest!fit.!When!an!additional!relationship!is!included!between!mentalizing!a!purpose!(λ+=!.16,!z=!6.86,!p+<0!.001),!improves!the!fit!(Yuan[Bentler!Χ2(8,!N!=!1916)!=!58.48,+p!<!0.001;!CFI!=!0.97;!RMSEA!=!0.05).!..........................................................................................!66!Figure!3.4:!The!percentage!of!people!who!are!religiously!affiliated!in!the!local!district!of!each!participant.!........................................................................................................!66!Figure!3.5:!CREDs!mediation!of!religious!participation!and!belief!in!God.!Non[mediated!betas!are!in!parenthesis.!........................................................................................!83!Figure!4.1:!Religious!group!by!country.!Percentage!of!sample!in!parenthesis!..........!100!Figure!4.2:!Belief!ratings!within!each!country.!Error!bars!are!95%!confidence!intervals.!.........................................................................................................................................!112!! !! ix!Acknowledgments(!I!am!profoundly!grateful!for!all!the!help!and!support!I!received!over!the!past!six!years!in!graduate!school.!A!special!thanks!goes!out!to!my!advisors!Drs.!Ara!Norenzayan!and!Joseph!Henrich.!You!guys!have!been!awesome.!I!could!not!have!asked!for!a!better!education!then!the!one!you!have!given!me.!I’d!also!like!to!thank!Drs.!Steve!Heine!and!Sue!Birch!for!being!part!of!my!committee,!and!Dr.!Edward!Slingerland!for!all!the!sage!advice!he!has!given!me,!and!all!the!opportunities!he!has!opened!up!for!me!over!the!years.!Thank!you!to!Lubomir!Cingl!for!all!his!help!with!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!research.!!I’d!like!to!thank!all!the!members!of!the!MECC!lab.!You!guys!made!this!fun.!Special!thanks!goes!to!Adam!Baimel!and!Bryan!Szabo,!for!their!much[needed!proof!reading!skills.!Finally,!thank!you!to!my!partner!Ben!Cole!for!being!so!supportive!and!putting!up!with!me!throughout!this!whole!process.!!!! 1!! Chapter(1: Introduction(!Virtually!all!cultures!known!in!human!history!have!harbored!some!type!of!supernatural!beliefs—beliefs!that!extend!beyond!a!naturalistic!description!of!the!world.1!In!most!of!these!cultures!specific!rituals!and!complex!traditions!have!built!up!around!these!supernatural!beliefs!to!form!religions.!Though!religions!take!on!a!multitude!of!forms!constructed!through!culture,!they!appear!to!exist!everywhere.!There!is!something!about!belief!in!the!supernatural!that!is!instinctual!in!humans,!and!the!rituals!and!practices!of!religions!seem!to!be!the!natural!extension!of!these!beliefs.!!Many!scholars!have!suggested!that!the!tendency!for!people!to!create!and!then!believe!in!supernatural!concepts!is!a!natural!to!humans!and!a!byproduct!of!adaptive!cognitive!abilities!(Atran,!2002;!Atran!&!Norenzayan,!2004;!Barrett,!2004;!Bloom,!2007;!Boyer,!1994;!2008;!Guthrie,!1993).!This!idea,!that!the!human!mind!is!predisposed!to!supernatural!ideas,!is!supported!by!the!observation!that!people!everywhere!create,!maintain,!and!believe!in!supernatural!concepts!(Boyer,!2001).!Yet!despite!this!observation,!organized!religions!are!on!the!decline!in!some!parts!of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!Supernatural!concepts!are!probably!not!separate!from!the!conception!of!the!‘natural’!world!within!most!cultures.!Rather,!these!concepts!are!considered!part!of!the!natural!world.!Never!the!less,!I!need!a!word!to!describe!this!type!of!concept,!and!supernatural!is!the!most!suitable!despite!this!caveat.!By!‘beliefs!that!extend!beyond!a!naturalistic!description!of!the!world’!I!mean!the!use!of!agent!based!causal!reasoning!rather!than!mechanistic!causal!reasoning!when!mechanistic!is!more!appropriate.!I!am!also!referring!to!the!belief!in!non[scientific!invisible!forces!that!affect!individuals!lives,!such!as!karma,!which!may!or!may!not!be!based!in!agent!based!reasoning.!! 2!the!world!today.!Scandinavia!and!other!parts!of!Europe!contain!only!a!minority!of!religious!believers,!and!the!number!continues!to!decrease!(Voas,!2008;!Zuckerman,!2008).!!How!do!we!reconcile!these!two!observations?!Part!of!the!answer!may!lie!in!what!people!are!doing!when!they!leave!their!traditional!religion.!In!places!where!large!numbers!of!people!have!rejected!institutional!religion,!other!types!of!supernatural!beliefs!have!become!increasingly!popular!(Fuller,!2001;!see!Roof,!1993;!1999;!Stark!&!Bainbridge,!1985).!As!religious!beliefs!decline,!alternative!supernatural!beliefs!seem!to!replace!them!in!at!least!some!proportion!of!the!population.!!1.1 Separating(Belief(from(Practice(To!understand!the!basis!of!supernatural!and!religious!belief,!it!is!important!first!to!understand!what!these!two!terms!mean,!how!they!overlap,!and!when!and!where!they!do!not!overlap.!Religion!is!a!term!notoriously!difficult!to!define!(Hill!et!al.,!2000;!see!Pargament,!1999),!and!I!am!not!going!to!tackle!that!problem!here.!Rather,!I!would!like!to!specify!how!I!will!use!these!terms!in!the!pages!that!follow.!In!this!dissertation!the!term!‘religion’!operationalized!as!a!set!of!specific!cultural!practices,!usually!rituals,!that!surround!a!set!of!specific!supernatural!beliefs!(see!Shariff,!Purzycki,!&!Sosis,!2014).!Religious!beliefs—which!can!be!conceptually!separated!from!religious!practice—are!the!set!of!supernatural!beliefs!that!are!endorsed!by!a!specific!cultural!tradition.!The!content!of!the!rituals,!practices,!and!beliefs!that!make!up!a!religion!will!differ!from!culture!to!culture.!In!this!dissertation!‘religion’!is!most!commonly!referring!to!‘Christianity’.!Though!minorities!of!other!! 3!religious!groups!exist!in!all!of!my!samples,!the!vast!majority!of!religious!participants!in!every!study!are!Christian.!!When!I!discuss!supernatural!beliefs,!I!mean!beliefs!that!use!mentalistic!or!other!non[natural!invisible!forces!to!explain!objects,!events,!or!even!more!generally,!causation!(Atran,!2002;!Barrett,!2000;!see!Barrett!&!Keil,!1996;!Boyer,!2008;!Kelemen,!2004).!Religious!beliefs!are!a!type!of!supernatural!beliefs,!but!the!broader!category!of!supernatural!beliefs!involves!everything!from!the!belief!in!ghosts!and!ESP!to!the!sense!that!things!always!happen!for!a!reason.!The!natural!tendency!towards!supernatural!belief!does!not!assume!a!natural!tendency!towards!belonging!to!any!specific!religion!or!even!engaging!in!a!ritual!practice—though!supernatural!belief!and!ritual!practice!are!clearly!related.!When!scholars!talk!about!an!intuition!towards!religion,!by!my!terminology!what!they!really!mean!is!an!intuition!towards!supernatural!beliefs!more!generally.!There!is!something!about!how!humans!perceive!and!process!information!from!the!world!that!leads!them!to!adopt!all!sorts!of!supernatural!beliefs,!not!just!the!ones!found!in!religions.!How!these!beliefs!gain!ritual!practices!and!get!canonized!into!religions!is!a!separate!process!of!cultural!learning.!!How!one!chooses!to!label!these!different!concepts!is!not!important,!but!the!conceptual!distinction!is.!If!one!chooses!to!define!all!supernatural!belief!as!religious,!that!is!fine,!but!the!distinction!between!beliefs!that!are!culturally!and!institutionally!supported!and!enforced!by!religions—what!I!am!calling!‘religious!beliefs’—are!! 4!conceptually!distinct!from!those!that!are!not—such!as!belief!in!the!paranormal.2!This!first!group,!religious!beliefs,!has!additional!causal!pressure!that!may!be!absent,!or!largely!absent,!from!the!paranormal!beliefs.!Types!of!cultural!learning!and!additional!cultural!pressures!such!as!punishing!people!who!violate!social!norms!could!easily!wash!out!any!effects!of!the!intuitions!that!would!otherwise!lead!people!to!hold!supernatural!beliefs.!That!is!to!say,!people!will!adopt!culturally!enforced!religious!beliefs!even!when!they!do!not!find!them!intuitive.!This!is!unlikely!to!be!true!of!paranormal!beliefs.!In!places!were!religious!beliefs!are!not!strongly!enforced!by!a!society,!intuitions!towards!supernatural!belief!should!still!have!an!effect!in!predicting!who!is!and!is!not!a!believer.!This!would!be!manifest!in!who!joins!and!leaves!religion.!People!who!are!low!in!these!intuitions!should!be!more!likely!to!convert!away!from!religion,!and!those!who!are!high!should!be!more!likely!to!convert!to!religion.!It!has!been!recorded!and!debated!in!the!literature!that!some!religions,!especially!small[scale!religions,!focus!more!on!practice!than!belief!(Cohen,!Siegel,!&!Rozin,!2003;!Purzycki!&!Sosis,!2011;!Shariff!et!al.,!2014).!Some!religions!consider!proper!ritual!practice!as!the!primary!area!of!concern!in!religion,!rather!than!the!strength!of!an!individual’s!belief.!At!the!same!time,!the!growing!trend!towards!the!‘spiritual!but!not!religious’,!gives!an!example!of!a!group!of!people!who!abandon!traditional!religious!practices,!and!often!stand!up!against!them!(see!Roof,!1993;!1999),!but!do!not!give!up!their!supernatural!beliefs!(Fuller,!2001;!Voas,!2008).!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!The!category!of!supernatural!beliefs!that!exist!outside!of!organized!religion!extends!far!beyond!just!paranormal!beliefs.!I!use!this!term!only!because!this!is!what!I!measured!in!the!studies!that!follow.!Other!concepts!like!non[religious!spirituality!will!likely!also!fall!into!this!category.!!! 5!These!two!ideas,!that!religious!practice!can!exist!without!enforcing!belief,!and!belief!can!exist!without!religious!practice,!suggest!that!practice!and!belief!are!separate!phenomena.!!This!separation!does!not!exclude!the!idea!that!belief!in!supernatural!concepts!or!agents!will!increase!a!person’s!motivation!to!participate!in!a!religious!practice,!or!that!people!tend!to!create!ritual!practices!around!their!beliefs!and!form!religions.!All!this!separation!suggests!is!that!we!cannot!talk!about!religion!and!supernatural!belief!interchangeably!because!they!do!not!always!refer!to!the!same!thing.!The!cognitive!and!cultural!learning!mechanisms!that!lead!to!the!adoption!of!religious!practice!may!be!different!from!those!that!make!people!more!prone!supernatural!belief.!Further,!belief!and!practice!may!be!differently!impacted!by!religious!decline!and!the!secularization!of!societies.!!This!dissertation!will!explore!some!of!the!reasons!for!the!ubiquity!of!religion!and!supernatural!belief.!Much!of!the!work!outlined!here!focuses!on!exploring!the!individual!differences!in!underlying!cognitive!tendencies!that!lead!to!supernatural!beliefs!and!how!these!differences!can!answer!important!questions!about!belief.!At!the!same!time,!I!have!paid!attention!to!the!role!that!context!and!culture!have!played!in!supporting!or!extinguishing!specific!religions!and!religious!beliefs.!!Understanding!both!the!underlying!cognitive!and!cultural!processes!that!lead!to!belief!and!the!cultural!strategies!that!maintain!them!is!necessary!if!we!are!to!understand!why!supernatural!beliefs!exist,!why!they!persist,!and!more!generally!how!religions!rise!and!fall.!These!mechanisms!may!additionally!account!for!why!some!types!of!beliefs!are!more!compelling!than!others.!Ultimately,!understanding!! 6!supernatural!cognition!will!give!us!a!better!understanding!of!human!minds!and!how!they!function!in!relation!to!the!culture!and!environment!in!which!they!live.!Religion!is!central!to!many!people’s!lives,!and!religion!is!an!important!piece!in!understanding!the!puzzle!of!human!psychology!more!broadly.!!1.2 The(Cognitive(Basis(of(Religious(Belief(Most!of!the!prominent!cognitive!theories!of!supernatural!belief!are!centered!on!how!we!perceive!minds.!Our!ability!to!perceive!and!reason!about!other!people’s!minds,!or!Theory!of!Mind!(ToM;!see!Baron[Cohen,!1995;!Baron[Cohen,!Leslie,!&!Frith,!1985;!Leslie,!1994;!Leslie,!Friedman,!&!German,!2004),!is!at!the!core!of!our!abilities!to!live!in!groups,!to!learn!from!others,!and!accumulate!culture.!Group!living!and!the!ability!to!create!cultures!requires!humans!to!be!able!to!understand!the!goals!and!motivations!of!others!and!to!recognize!that!those!goals!and!motivations!may!be!different!from!their!own!(Herrmann,!Call,!Hernández[Lloreda,!Hare,!&!Tomasello,!2007;!Tomasello,!Carpenter,!Call,!Behne,!&!Moll,!2005).!!A!variety!of!evolved!capacities!go!into!this!ability!to!help!efficiently!process!social!cues.!Humans!have!evolved!a!keen!ability!to!read!faces!for!clues!to!the!emotional!and!mental!states!of!others!(Baron[Cohen,!1995),!and!are!attentive!to!gaze!direction!or!any!movement!that!indicate!an!intention!or!goal!from!a!very!young!age!(Hood,!Willen,!&!Driver,!1998;!S.!C.!Johnson,!Slaughter,!&!Carey,!1998;!Scaife!&!Bruner,!1975).!Infants!understand!that!certain!motion!cues!are!cues!of!agency!(R.!Gelman,!Durgin,!&!Kaufman,!1995;!Rakison!&!Poulin[Dubois,!2001;!Scholl!&!Tremoulet,!2000)!and!recognize!humans!as!a!special!source!of!agency!(Guajardo!&!Woodward,!2004).!Infants’!ability!to!reason!about!agents!is!so!complex!that!it!even!! 7!encompasses!the!basic!moral!tenets!of!harm!and!fairness!(Hamlin!&!Wynn,!2011;!Hamlin,!Wynn,!&!Bloom,!2007).!We!also!have!additional!capacities!for!reasoning!about!mental!states!once!they!have!been!cued!(Apperly!&!Butterfill,!2009;!Apperly,!Samson,!&!Humphreys,!2005).!Still,!the!existence!of!ToM!itself!does!not!explain!why!we!create!supernatural!minds.!Reasoning!about!supernatural!minds!requires!something!that!goes!beyond!the!functions!traditionally!associated!with!ToM,!such!as!the!ability!to!live!socially!and!learn!from!others.!Supernatural!minds!require!us!to!create!new!minds!where!minds!do!not!exist.!To!explain!gods!and!ghosts,!our!ToM!abilities!needs!to!overestimate!the!number!of!minds!in!the!world.!This!is!not!as!simple!as!noticing!things!that!might!be!agents;!we!go!further,!giving!them!a!set!of!desires!and!motivations!that!compel!us!to!try!to!understand!and!interact!with!them.!!The!cognitive!science!of!religion!has!put!forward!several!basic!mechanisms!that!can!lead!to!supernatural!beliefs!(Barrett,!2004;!Barrett!&!Keil,!1996;!Bloom,!2007;!e.g.!Guthrie,!1996;!Kelemen,!2004).!I!focus!on!a!handful!of!specific!processes!throughout!this!dissertation:!anthropomorphism,!dualism,!teleology,!and!mentalizing.!I!will!outline!each!of!these!theories!here!and!briefly!explain!how!they!may!relate!to!supernatural!belief.!!Anthropomorphism+One!of!the!oldest,!and!most!well!known!cognitive!theories!locates!the!basis!of!religious!belief!in!anthropomorphism!(Barrett,!2000;!2004;!Feuerbach,!1957;!Guthrie!et!al.,!1980).!One!version!of!this!theory!states!that!believers!conceptualize!gods!and!other!supernatural!agents!by!projecting!human[like!mental!states!onto!! 8!them!(discussed!below!under!“Mentalizing”).!Another!version!of!this!idea!focuses!on!the!human!tendency!to!project!human[like!characteristics!onto!all!types!of!non[human!things—from!clouds,!chairs!and!automobiles!to!pets!and!gods!(e.g.!Barrett,!2004;!Guthrie,!1993;!Hume,!1981).!Guthrie!and!others!argue!that!this!tendency!to!detect!humans!everywhere!leads!to!the!belief!that!human[like!beings!exist!everywhere,!giving!rise!to,!for!example,!animistic!beliefs!that!the!world!is!infused!with!gods,!spirits,!and!ghosts!(Guthrie,!1996).!The!theoretical!logic!behind!this!claim!is!that!the!costs!and!benefits!of!agency!detection!are!asymmetric;!seeing!agents!everywhere!helps!us!avoid!being!surprised!by!a!hidden!agent.!The!cost!to!seeing!agents!where!there!are!none!is!small!compared!to!the!cost!of!not!seeing!an!agent!when!there!is!one!present—especially!when!that!agent!has!the!potential!to!harm!or!kill!us!(Barrett,!2000;!2004;!Guthrie,!1996).!Empirical!work!in!psychology!investigating!anthropomorphism!has!taken!a!different!perspective.!Rather!than!showing!that!projecting!human[like!agency!onto!the!world!is!promiscuous!and!automatic,!research!has!demonstrated!this!tendency!to!be!selective!(Waytz,!Gray,!Epley,!&!Wegner,!2010b)!and!motivated!(Epley,!Waytz,!Akalis,!&!Cacioppo,!2008b).!Studies!have!shown!that!people!do!not!always!see!human!minds!in!non[human!entities!and!objects;!they!do!so!when!they!are!lonely!and!want!human!companionship!(Epley,!Akalis,!Waytz,!&!Cacioppo,!2008a),!or!when!an!entity!behaves!uncharacteristically!and!its!behavior!cannot!be!reliably!predicted!using!other!conceptual!frameworks!(Waytz,!Morewedge,!Epley,!Monteleone,!et!al.,!2010c).!This!research!outlines,!in!particular,!the!potential!situations!in!which!we!would!project!human!minds!onto!non[human!entities;!but!the!relationship!between!! 9!mind–perception!and!conceptualizations!of!God!has!only!been!explored!in!a!small!set!of!studies!(e.g.!H.!M.!Gray,!Gray,!&!Wegner,!2007;!Schjoedt,!Stodkilde[Jorgensen,!Geertz,!&!Roepstorff,!2009).!In!addition,!there!is!now!extensive!evidence!that!there!are!dispositional!differences!in!anthropomorphic!tendencies,!such!that!some!people!are!chronically!more!likely!to!anthropomorphize!than!others!(Waytz,!Cacioppo,!&!Epley,!2010a).!!This!idea!of!motivated!reasoning!when!we!think!about!minds!seems!closer!to!how!people!think!about!and!interact!with!supernatural!minds.!If!people!are!using!supernatural!minds!to!explain!things!like!events!or!causal!forces,!it!is!unclear!how!belief!in!this!type!of!agency!is!cued!(but!see!Newman,!Keil,!Kuhlmeier,!&!Wynn,!2010).!Such!belief!seems!to!come!out!of!a!motivation!for!explanation!rather!than!an!automatic!reaction!to!some!visual!cue!of!agency.!Further,!when!people!think!about!the!minds!of!gods!they!often!think!strategically!(i.e.!considering!what!gods!know!and!how!this!information!can!impact!their!lives)!(Purzycki,!2013;!Purzycki!&!Sosis,!2011).!For!example,!a!morally!concerned!god!may!punish!you!for!doing!something!non[normative!or!otherwise!displeasing!to!that!god.!!Dualism+Mind[body!dualism!refers!to!the!intuition!that!minds!are!separate!from!bodies!(Bloom,!2005;!Damasio,!1994).!According!to!this!theory,!minds!are!seen!as!a!non[physical!substance!that!can!be!related!to!but!not!reliant!on!bodies,!opening!up!the!possibility!of!minds!existing!without!bodies.!In!a!sense,!the!ability!to!think!dualistically!is!a!necessary!condition!for!understanding!concepts!such!as!ghosts!and!spirits!or!any!other!disembodied!supernatural!agent!(Bloom,!2007).!!! 10!As!an!intellectual!concept,!the!idea!that!the!mind!and!body!are!separate!is!most!commonly!attributed!to!Descartes,!but!according!to!Damasio!(1994)!it!originates!in!the!structure!of!the!brain.!One!of!the!unique!characteristics!of!human!cognition!is!the!ability!to!represent!and!reason!about!others!people’s!minds!(Herrmann!et!al.,!2007).!With!this!ability,!it!seems!that!even!young!children!develop!the!intuition!that!what!makes!up!a!mind!is!independent!of!the!physical!body!and!therefore!subject!to!different!rules!(C.!N.!Johnson!&!Wellman,!1982).!Until!recently,!the!empirical!evidence!for!dualistic!intuitions!was!limited.!Only!a!few!empirical!studies!have!looked!at!dualism!and!have!only!used!children!in!western!settings!(C.!N.!Johnson,!1990;!Kuhlmeier,!Bloom,!&!Wynn,!2004;!Lillard,!1996).!A!few!recent!studies!have!offered!more!support!for!dualism!as!a!common!human!tendency,!showing!dualistic!thinking!in!North!American!and!Fijian!children,!(Chudek,!McNamara,!Birch,!Bloom,!&!Henrich,!2013)!in!rural!Madagascar!(Astuti!&!Harris,!2008),!and!in!Ancient!Chinese!texts!(Slingerland!&!Chudek,!2011).!These!cross[cultural!findings!support!the!idea!that!dualistic!thinking!may!be!a!human!universal,!which!in!turn!allows!its!hypothesized!relationship!to!supernatural!beliefs!to!support!the!universality!of!the!potential!for!such!beliefs.!!Teleology+Religious!beliefs!may!also!be!rooted!in!teleological!thinking,!which!is!the!tendency!to!see!things!in!the!world!as!having!an!overarching!purpose!and!having!been!intentionally!made!for!that!purpose!(Kelemen,!1999;!Kelemen!&!DiYanni,!2005).!This!tendency!is!theorized!as!a!byproduct!of!‘artifact!cognition’.!Part!of!our!ability!to!understand!artifacts—such!as!a!hammer—is!the!capacity!to!see!artifacts!as!! 11!designed!by!agents!with!specific!goals!and!motivations.!This!ability!is!sometimes!referred!to!as!‘promiscuous’!when!it!is!extended!to!things!that!were!not!made!for!any!purpose.!For!example,!children!have!the!intuition!that!lions!exist!so!that!we!can!visit!them!at!the!zoo,!clouds!are!for!raining,!and!mountains!are!for!climbing!(Kelemen,!2004).!!This!tendency,!commonly!found!in!children!(Kelemen,!1999),!is!suppressed!among!science[educated!adults!unless!when!they!are!under!time!pressure!(Kelemen!&!Rosset,!2009;!Kelemen,!Rottman,!&!Seston,!2013).!It!is!also!exaggerated!in!people!with!Alzheimer’s!(Lombrozo,!Kelemen,!&!Zaitchik,!2007).!These!two!additions!suggest!that!it!is!not!only!a!common!human!tendency,!but!also!one!that!is!always!just!under!the!surface!of!our!more!carefully!reasoned!thoughts.!The!tendency!to!see!the!world!and!things!in!the!world!as!purposeful!leads!to!the!possibility!of!seeing!one!or!more!agents!as!having!created!the!world.!Therefore,!promiscuous!teleology!makes!us!‘intuitive!theists’!(Kelemen,!2004;!Kelemen!&!DiYanni,!2005).!Mentalizing+All!of!the!above!cognitive!tendencies!have!a!clear!common!feature:!they!require!some!mentalizing!ability.!There!has!been!some!speculation!about!the!relationship!between!metalizing!and!religious!belief!(Atran,!2002;!Atran!&!Norenzayan,!2004;!Barrett,!2004;!Bloom,!2007;!Boyer,!2001),!but!limited!empirical!work!has!been!conducted.!Mentalizing,!or!Theory!of!Mind,!is!the!tendency!to!infer!and!think!about!the!mental!states!of!others.!The!key!idea!is!that!to!interact!with!person[like!supernatural!beings,!such!as!a!personal!God,!spirits,!or!ghosts—core!features!of!many!religions—believers!must!try!to!understand!the!wishes,!beliefs,!! 12!and!desires!of!these!beings.!Conceptualizing!them!requires!some!mentalizing!abilities.!Consistent!with!this,!neuro[imaging!studies!found!that!among!Christian!believers!in!the!US!(Kapogiannis!et!al.,!2009)!and!in!Denmark!(Schjoedt!et!al.,!2009),!thinking!about!or!praying!to!God!activates!brain!regions!associated!with!Theory!of!Mind.!!A!recent!effort!went!further,!investigating!whether!individual!differences!in!mentalizing!are!associated!with!belief!in!a!personal!God!(Norenzayan,!Gervais,!&!Trzesniewski,!2012).!If!mentalizing!is!required!for!belief!in!a!personal!God,!then!poor!mentalizing!skills!would!be!expected!to!render!religious!belief!less!intuitive,!leading!to!lower!levels!of!belief.!Indeed,!research!shows!that!the!autism!spectrum,!which!is!characterized!by!selective!deficits!in!Theory!of!Mind,!is!associated!with!lower!levels!of!mental!state!attributions!to!God!(K.!Gray,!Jenkins,!Heberlein,!&!Wegner,!2011).!Consistent!with!this!line!of!reasoning,!individual!differences!in!mentalizing!predicted!religious!belief;!moreover,!the!autism!spectrum,!as!expected,!inversely!predicted!belief!in!God,!and!mentalizing!skills!were!found!to!mediate!this!effect!(Norenzayan!et!al.,!2012).!!1.3 The(Influence(of(Context(and(Culture(! Though!the!cognitive!foundations!of!supernatural!thought!may!be!universal,!religions,!and!the!supernatural!beliefs!that!exist!in!them,!are!vastly!different!across!cultures.!I!suggested!in!the!previous!section!that!some!of!the!reason!why!people!have!these!beliefs!is!due!to!a!set!of!cognitive!tendencies.!What+people!believe,!on!the!other!hand,!is!largely!due!to!their!culture.!Simple!put,!if!the!majority!of!your!culture!! 13!believes!in!Zeus!you!are!far!more!likely!to!also!believe!in!Zeus!then!the!Shiva!or!Kali!or!the!Abrahamic!God!(Gervais!&!Henrich,!2010).!Yet,!there!is!far!more!to!the!relationship!between!religion!and!culture!than!this.!Much!of!why!people!believe!may!also!be!determined!by!their!culture.!Social!institutions!that!make!people!feel!safe!and!secure,!reducing!existential!anxieties,!can!reduce!people’s!motivation!to!engage!with!religious!belief!(Atran!&!Norenzayan,!2004;!Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004).!Additionally,!religions!employ!various!cultural!learning!mechanism!that!can!transmit!and!promote!belief!(e.g.!Henrich,!2009;!Henrich!&!Boyd,!1998;!Henrich!&!Gil[White,!2001).!Without!these!mechanisms,!specific!religious!traditions!would!disappear,!even!among!people!who!find!supernatural!beliefs!intuitive.!!Existential+Anxiety++The!existential!anxiety!hypothesis!suggests!that,!as!cultural!institutions!grow!and!deal!with!many!of!the!problems!people!in!large!societies!face,!religion!becomes!less!important!to!people.!Beliefs!such!as!the!immortality!of!the!soul!and!divine!reward!and!punishment!help!people!deal!with!fear!of!harm!(K.!Gray!&!Wegner,!2010)!and!fear!of!death!(Jong,!Halberstadt,!&!Bluemke,!2012;!Norenzayan!&!Hansen,!2006;!Vail,!Arndt,!&!Abdollahi,!2012).!These!sorts!of!beliefs!give!people!a!sense!of!order!to!the!world!and!help!them!feel!a!sense!of!control,!which!reduces!feelings!of!anxiety!(Kay,!Gaucher,!McGregor,!&!Nash,!2010a;!Kay,!Gaucher,!Napier,!Callan,!&!Laurin,!2008;!Kay,!Moscovitch,!&!Laurin,!2010b).!!Religions!also!provide!institutions!and!communities!that!look!after!people!when!they!are!sick!and!in!need.!As!other!non[religious!institutions!start!to!reduce!these!anxieties!through!modern!medicine,!science,!education,!and!social!safety!nets,!! 14!the!importance!of!religious!belief!declines!(Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004).!A!consequence!of!this!theory!is!that!if!religion!makes!people!feel!more!secure,!religion!may!cause!a!discrepancy!between!perceived!security!and!actual!security.!For!any!given!level!of!actual!threat!within!in!a!culture,!those!who!are!religious!may!feel!more!secure!than!those!who!are!not!due!to!the!sense!of!protection!and!control!religion!gives.!!Credibility+Enhancing+Displays+(CREDs)+As!religious!institutions!become!less!important!in!a!society,!people!may!stop!displaying!their!belief!through!their!actions.!They!may!stop!regularly!participating!in!rituals!or!giving!resources!to!religious!institutions.!This!impacts!a!second!theory!of!culture’s!influence!on!religion:!how!people!learn!what!to!believe!in!the!first!place.!Both!ritual!participation!and!resource!allocation!can!be!considered!credible!displays!of!belief!(CRED;!Henrich,!2009).!A!CRED!is!a!hard!to!fake!behavior!that!can!reliably!convey!the!content!of!another’s!mind.!Humans!have!evolved!to!be!expert!social!learners,!but!this!capacity!to!learn!from!others!brings!with!it!the!opportunity!for!exploitation.!CREDs!offer!a!way!to!judge!if!a!person!is!giving!true!information!or!not.!Since!cheating!is!a!constant!possibility,!we!should!be!sensitive!to!any!cue!to!the!authenticity!of!social!information,!especially!behaviors!that!are!potentially!costly!and!not!otherwise!verifiable.!CREDs!are!one!such!cue.!!Ritual!behaviors!function!as!CREDs.!By!displaying!commitment!to!religion!through!ritual!practices,!onlookers!will!see!the!ritual!participants!as!being!truthful!in!their!declaration!of!belief.!Onlookers!will!see!these!beliefs!as!more!plausible,!and!even!to!adopt!them!themselves.!Within!Christianity,!actions!like!going!to!church!or!! 15!paying!tithes!are!credible!displays!of!belief.!Without!these!displays,!new!generations!may!be!less!likely!to!adopt!the!specific!belief!systems!of!their!parents,!increasing!the!rate!of!religious!decline!in!society!(see!Lanman,!2012).!!1.4 Individual(Difference(! The!cognitive!biases!mentioned!above,!or!even!the!cultural!learning!mechanisms,!can!be!conceptualized!as!a!presence/absence!or!as!a!continuous!trait.!A!trait!like!dualism!could!relate!to!supernatural!belief!only!in!terms!of!a!presence!or!absence;!people!either!see!minds!as!separate!from!bodies!or!not,!and!therefore!are!supernatural!believers!or!not.!Cognitive!traits!can!often!be!thought!about!in!both!ways.!For!example,!ToM!is!often!discussed!in!terms!of!a!pass!or!fail!of!the!false!belief!test,!but!can!also!be!though!about!in!terms!of!strengths!and!deficits.!When!we!talk!about!adults’!ToM,!this!is!generally!what!we!mean.!Some!people!are!better!than!others!at!representing!and!thinking!about!other!people’s!minds.!In!adults,!we!measure!ToM!on!a!continuous!scale.!Traits!such!as!dualism!can!also!be!thought!about!in!terms!of!this!sort!of!continuous!scale.!Even!if!everybody!has!the!intuition!that!minds!and!bodies!are!separate,!this!intuition!may!be!stronger!in!some!people!than!in!others.!This!could!manifest!in!the!level!of!anxiety!people!experience!at!the!idea!that!their!entire!mental!life!and!consciousness!arise!from!a!lump!of!gray!flesh.!Some!people!may!be!fine!with!this!idea;!others!may!find!it!extremely!disconcerting.!There!is!evidence!that!all!of!the!cognitive!tendencies!I!mentioned!previously!can!be!considered!as!a!scale!rather!than!an!all[or[nothing!trait.!This!means!that!people!vary!in!the!extent!to!which!they!! 16!experience!and!express!these!tendencies;!these!individual!differences!are!measurable!in!terms!of!magnitude.!!! Cultural!variables,!such!as!exposure!to!CREDs!and!anxiety!alleviated!by!secular!institutions,!can!similarly!be!measured!in!terms!of!magnitude!and!individual!differences.!Looking!at!individual!difference!for!both!cognitive!tendencies!and!cultural!practices!allows!me!to!correlate!these!factors!with!religious!and!other!types!of!supernatural!beliefs!and!practices!across!large!populations.!This,!in!turn,!allows!me!to!look!at!how!these!traits,!tendencies,!and!beliefs!relate!to!each!other!in!the!real!world—not!just!in!the!lab.!Still,!since!this!type!of!research!is!based!on!correlations,!causal!direction!cannot!be!determined.!Though!methods!can!be!used!to!strengthen!the!argument!for!causation,!like!the!path!analyses!and!natural!experiments!used!in!the!studies!that!follow,!it!is!never!a!definitive!case.!This!lack!of!causal!direction!is!why!experimental!methodologies!are!the!gold!standard!of!psychological!research.!!! At!the!same!time,!experiments!are!only!as!good!as!the!theoretical!predictions!that!support!them.!Although!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!has!a!number!of!theories!explaining!how!these!cognitive!tendencies!should!be!related!to!religious!belief,!almost!no!experimental!work!exists!that!supports!any!of!these!theories.!Experimental!tests!of!these!theories!are!difficult!because!the!theories!themselves!are!vague.!‘Religion’!when!it!refers!to!practice!and!belief!is!too!broad!a!topic!for!the!precise!operational!definitions!required!for!a!clean!experimental!design.!Even!limiting!ourselves!to!‘supernatural!agents’!ignores!the!large!and!potentially!important!difference!between!how!people!think!about!something!like!ghosts!and!how!they!think!about!an!omnipotent!god.!Before!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!! 17!can!expect!much!progress!and!success!with!experimental!methods,!it!must!first!have!access!to!clearer!theoretical!boundaries!between!variables.!This!is!precisely!where!an!individual!difference!approach!to!these!problems!offers!a!solution.!By!looking!at!patterns!and!relationships!across!large!datasets,!I!can!better!assess!how!these!variables!fit!together!and!begin!to!form!a!more!complete!understanding!of!the!complex!processes!that!make!up!supernatural!and!religious!belief.!!1.5 Summary(of(Chapters(! Chapter!2!looks!at!how!individual!differences!in!mentalizing,!dualism,!anthropomorphism,!and!teleology!collectively!relate!to!supernatural!belief.!This!chapter!uses!structural!equation!modeling!to!map!out!the!relationships!between!all!of!these!variables!in!a!single!model.!An!additional!measure,!looking!at!cultural!exposure!to!Christianity,!was!added!to!the!second!sample!to!look!at!some!of!the!cultural!impact!of!living!in!a!religious!society.!This!chapter!is!based!on!a!published!paper!(Willard!&!Norenzayan,!2013).!Chapter!3!focuses!on!a!combination!of!cognitive!and!cultural!mechanisms!as!predictors!of!religious!and!other!supernatural!beliefs!in!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia.!Despite!a!shared!history,!similar!languages!and!a!common!geography,!the!Czech!Republic!is!a!largely!atheistic!society,!while!Slovakia!has!a!Christian!majority.!This!allows!me!to!compare!across!several!different!types!of!theories—cognition,!social!institutions,!and!cultural!transmission—to!explain!this!difference.!This!study!includes!all!the!cognitive!traits!and!replicates!the!model!presented!in!Chapter!2,!plus!an!additional!series!of!questions!assessing!perceived!social!and!economic!! 18!security!and!CREDs.!I!examine!which!of!these!variables!explain!the!most!variance!in!religious!belief,!religious!practice,!and!paranormal!beliefs!above!and!beyond!basic!demographic!variables.!With!a!set!of!regression!analyses!I!demonstrate!that!cognition!explains!belief!but!not!religious!practice!and!that!cultural!variables!explain!practice!better!than!they!explain!belief.!!Chapter!4!sets!out!to!create!a!cognitive!and!belief!profile!of!the!“spiritual!but!not!religious”!(SBNR).!Cognitive!tendencies,!I!will!argue,!can!identify!these!people!as!different!from!religious!and!non[religious!participants.!I!look!at!data!from!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!and!compare!it!to!the!USA.!With!the!aid!of!these!data,!I!examine!the!similarity!and!differences!in!cognition!and!belief!among!the!SBNR,!the!religious,!and!the!non[religious.!While!patterns!of!belief!vary!according!to!both!group!and!country,!cognitive!tendencies!show!marked!variance!across!groups,!but!not!country,!suggesting!that!belief!is!somewhat!determined!by!country!of!origin,!but!cognition!is!not.!In!this!chapter,!I!also!look!at!the!effects!of!upbringing!on!patterns!of!belief!and!find!that!how!people!were!raised!still!impacts!their!current!belief,!even!after!accounting!for!the!impact!of!their!current!group!affiliation.!Non[religious!and!SBNR!who!were!raised!religiously!look!different!then!those!who!where!not.!Finally,!the!cognitive!variables!are!used!to!predict!which!participants!have!converted!from!one!group!to!another.!!!! 19!Chapter(2: Cognitive(Biases(of(Supernatural(and(Religious(Belief(2.1 Introduction(Religion!is!an!important!part!of!the!lives!of!billions!of!people!around!the!world!and!a!cross[culturally!recurrent!aspect!of!both!minds!and!cultures.!Over!the!past!decade,!several!theories!have!emphasized!that!the!natural!basis!of!religious!belief!and!experience!is!found!in!cognitive!biases!that!are!byproducts!of!brain!functions!(Atran!&!Norenzayan,!2004;!Barrett,!2000;!2004;!Bloom,!2007;!Boyer,!2001;!2008;!Kelemen,!2004).!These!theories!converge,!together!suggesting!that!belief!in!supernatural!agents!such!as!gods!and!spirits,!and!related!phenomena!emerges!from!a!set!of!interrelated!cognitive!biases,!such!as!perceptions!of!agency!and!mentalizing,!mind[body!dualism,!and!teleological!intuitions.!Equipped!with!these!cognitive!biases,!human!minds!gravitate!towards!religious!and!religious[like!beliefs!and!intuitions.!Despite!the!plausibility!and!influence!of!these!theories,!there!has!been!limited!empirical!research!directly!testing!the!connection!between!specific!cognitive!biases!and!various!religious!beliefs.!Moreover,!cognitive!theories!have!not!been!formally!modeled!in!a!unifying!conceptual!framework!that!assesses!how!various!cognitive!biases,!taken!together!and!in!relation!to!each!other,!explain!religious!belief.!These!were!the!main!goals!of!the!present!study.!!I!took!an!individual!difference!approach!to!examine!whether!variation!in!religious!and!related!beliefs!could!be!explained!by!variation!in!several!interrelated!! 20!cognitive!biases!and!intuitions!that!have!been!theorized!to!underlie!religious!belief.!Previous!work!has!found!variation!in!religious!belief!to!be!related!to!a!number!of!key!individual!differences!in!conscientiousness!and!agreeableness!dimensions!of!the!Big!Five!(Piedmont!&!Wilkins,!2005;!Saroglou,!2002;!Saroglou,!Buxant,!&!Tilquin,!2008),!as!well!as!in!forgiveness!(McCullough,!Bono,!&!Root,!2005;!McCullough,!Carter,!DeWall,!&!Corrales,!2012),!and!in!self!regulation!(McCullough!&!Willoughby,!2009).!My!approach!is!also!grounded!in!an!individual!difference!method,!but!it!focuses!on!the!role!of!cognitive!biases!in!religious!belief.!Consistent!with!cognitive!theories!(Atran!&!Norenzayan,!2004;!Barrett,!2000;!Boyer,!2001),!recent!research!has!found!that!religious!belief!is!rooted!in!intuitive!processes!and!that,!conversely,!religious!disbelief!can!arise!from!analytic!cognitive!tendencies!that!block!or!override!these!intuitive!processes.!In!one!series!of!studies,!Shenhav,!Rand!&!Green!(2012)!found!that!individual!differences!in!intuitive!thinking!predict!more!belief!in!God,!controlling!for!several!relevant!demographic!and!psychological!variables!such!as!education!level,!relevant!personality!dimensions,!and!general!intelligence.!!Pennycook,!Cheyne,!Seli,!Koehler,!and!Fugelsang!(2012)!replicated!and!extended!these!individual!difference!findings,!further!showing!that!skepticism!in!the!face!of!purportedly!religious!or!paranormal!phenomena!is!less!prevalent!among!intuitive!thinkers,!holding!constant!potentially!confounding!factors.!In!a!series!of!experiments!that!agree!with!these!mostly!correlational!findings,!Gervais!&!Norenzayan!(2012),!as!well!as!Shenhav!et!al.!(2012)!found!that!inducing!analytic!processing!temporarily!decreased!religious!belief.!!! 21!Taken!together,!these!findings!suggest!that!religious!belief!is!anchored!in!intuitive!cognitive!biases,!but!they!do!not!specifically!pinpoint!which!particular!intuitive!processes!are!at!the!root!of!religious!belief;!neither!do!they!reveal!the!specific!pathways!by!which!these!intuitive!processes!encourage!religious!belief.!The!present!study!addressed!these!gaps!in!current!knowledge.!2.1.1 Overview(of(the(Present(Study( The!cognitive!tendencies!we!investigated!were!mentalizing,!anthropomorphism,!mind[body!dualism!and!teleological!thinking.!Rather!than!investigating!each!cognitive!tendency!in!isolation,!an!important!strength!of!the!current!research!was!to!build!a!path!model!to!examine!how!these!tendencies!mutually!interact!to!predict!different!but!related!types!of!belief—in!particular,!belief!in!God,!paranormal!belief,!and!belief!in!life’s!purpose.!With!this!method,!we!examined!several!interrelated!hypotheses.!1)!I!tested!for!the!hypothesized!direction!of!these!relationships—that!these!cognitive!tendencies!are!theorized!to!lead!to!supernatural!belief,!and!not!the!other!way!around.!2)!I!tested!the!underlying!relationship!between!cognitive!biases!and!beliefs,!investigating!whether!the!previously!established!path!from!mentalizing!to!belief!in!God!(as!well!as!other!supernatural!beliefs)!goes!through!other!cognitive!intuitions,!namely!teleology!and!mind[body!dualism.!3)!I!tested!whether!these!cognitive!biases!explain!other!supernatural!beliefs,!such!as!belief!in!paranormal!phenomena!and!belief!in!life’s!purpose.!4)!I!included!in!my!model!a!measure!of!cultural!exposure!to!religion!(operationalized!as!the!proportion!of!religious!adherents!that!lived!in!the!same!US!county!as!the!participant),!to!compare!the!relative!effects!of!intuitive!cognitive!! 22!biases!to!effects!due!to!cultural!transmission!of!religious!beliefs.!5),!Finally,!I!tested!the!generalizability!and!robustness!of!my!findings!by!testing!my!model!in!two!large!independent!samples,!and!across!ethnic!and!gender!lines.!2.1.2 Cognitive(Theories(of(Religious(Belief(! Very!little!work!has!explored!the!relationship!between!religious!belief!and!individual!differences!in!mentalizing!abilities.!It!seems!clear!that!the!ability!to!attribute!human!minds!to!non[human!entities!and!objects,!and!the!tendency!to!think!of!minds!as!separate!from!bodies!both!hinge!on!the!ability!to!understand!minds.!Similarly,!the!ability!to!see!minds!is!required!to!understand!the!motivation!behind!artifacts!created!by!those!minds.!These!cognitive!tendencies,!in!turn,!are!expected!to!increase!the!odds!of!belief!in!mindful!supernatural!agents.!2.1.3 The(Role(of(Cultural(Learning(in(Religion(( Of!course,!religious!beliefs!are!not!just!an!outcome!of!cognitive!biases;!they!are!also!influenced!by!cultural!learning.!Growing!up!and!living!in!a!religious!community!increases!the!odds!of!being!a!believer,!influences!the!particular!religious!beliefs!one!commits!to,!and!explains!the!psychological!impact!of!those!beliefs!(Cohen,!2009;!Cohen!&!Hill,!2007;!Gervais,!Willard,!Norenzayan,!&!Henrich,!2011).!However,!researchers!in!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!have!often!argued!that!culture’s!role!is!limited!and!that!cognitive!biases!are!doing!most!of!the!work!(Atran,!2002;!Barrett,!2004;!2008;!Bering,!2006;!2011;!Bering,!McLeod,!&!Shackelford,!2005).!Therefore,!I!included!a!variable!that!reflects!cultural!exposure!to!religion!(proportion!of!religious!adherents!in!the!participant’s!local!community)!to!! 23!investigate!the!relative!contributions!of!cognitive!and!cultural!influences!on!religious!belief,!with!the!important!caveat!that!only!one!cultural!variable!was!considered,!limiting!my!ability!to!make!strong!inferences!about!cultural!learning!processes!in!religious!beliefs.!2.1.4 Religious(Belief(I!measured!belief!in!the!conventional!personal!God!found!in!the!Abrahamic!religions!and!two!related!types!of!beliefs:!paranormal!belief!and!belief!in!life’s!purpose.!Unlike!the!culturally!endorsed!belief!in!God,!paranormal!beliefs!such!as!beliefs!in!extra[sensory!perception!and!ghosts!are!less!influenced!by!institutionalized!religion.!Belief!that!life!has!an!overarching!purpose!may!betray!some!underlying!teleological!intuition,!and!it!has!been!argued!that!even!atheists!cannot!shake!the!intuition!that!there!is!a!transcendental!intentionality!or!purpose!underlying!human!life!(Bering,!2002;!2003b).!At!the!same!time,!it!is!a!belief!that!is!reinforced!by!Christian!beliefs,!for!example,!Protestant!ideology!(Weinstein!&!Cleanthous,!1996).!I!measured!this!construct!to!examine!to!what!extent!this!belief!is!related!to!belief!in!God,!and!to!what!extent!it!is!related!to!cognitive!biases!above!and!beyond!any!relationship!to!belief!in!God.!!To!recapitulate,!the!present!study!tested!a!conceptual!model!that!predicts!belief!in!religious!agents,!in!paranormal!events,!and!in!life’s!purpose!from!individual!level!tendencies!towards!certain!cognitive!biases!as!well!as!cultural!exposure!to!religion.!Given!that!mentalizing!appears!to!underlie!the!other!cognitive!biases,!I!tested!a!model!that!starts!with!mentalizing,!leading!to!anthropomorphism,!mind[body!dualism,!and!teleology,!which!in!turn!informs!all!three!of!the!above[stated!! 24!beliefs.!Given!that!there!is!scant!empirical!research!about!this!topic,!I!was!interested!to!know!exactly!which!pathways!from!cognitive!biases!to!the!different!beliefs!would!emerge.!I!also!tested!several!alternative!models!against!the!data,!including!a!reverse!causation!account!that!would!argue!that!religious!beliefs!encourage!cognitive!biases!rather!than!the!other!way!around.!2.2 Method(2.2.1 (Participants(I!used!two!samples!to!allow!me!to!test!for!replicability,!robustness,!and!generalizability.!Sample!1!consisted!of!492!undergraduate!psychology!students!at!a!large!Canadian!university!with!a!religiously!and!ethnically!diverse!population.!Sample!2!consisted!of!920!adult!Americans!collected!though!Amazon’s!Mechanical!Turk!(see!Table!2.1).!!In!both!samples,!the!survey!was!hosted!by!the!Survey!Monkey!website!and!was!completed!by!the!participants!on!a!computer.!The!survey!completed!on!Mechanical!Turk!contained!slightly!fewer!questions!(due!to!the!removal!of!a!second!anthropomorphism!measure)!than!the!student!sample.!I!took!steps!to!ensure!data!quality!(Buhrmester,!Kwang,!&!Gosling,!2011).!For!example,!four!nonsense!questions!were!placed!throughout!the!survey!to!ensure!that!our!participants!were!paying!attention.!Participants!who!failed!to!answer!any!of!these!four!questions!correctly!were!removed!before!analysis!(as!a!result,!13!participants!were!removed!from!the!student!sample!and!95!from!the!Mechanical!Turk!sample).!!!!! 25!Table'2.1'+'Demographic'Characteristics'of'Participants'Demographic(Dimension( Canadian(Student(Sample( American(Adult(Sample(Age( ' 'Minimum'(years)' 18' 18'Maximum'(years)' 41' 81'Mean'(years)' 20.5' 34.7'Gender( ' 'Male'(%)' 23' 34'Female'(%)' 77' 66'Religious(Affiliation( ' 'Christian'(%)' 30.8' 50.3'Buddhist'(%)' 6.2' 1.8'Sikh'(%)' 2.8' 0.3'Muslim'(%)' 2.2' 0.7'Jewish'(%)' 1.6' 2.0'Spiritual'but'not'religious'(%)' 0.8' 13.3'Other'religious'(%)' 0.2' 0.3'Not'religious'(%)'' 53.8' 30.0'Ethnicity( ' 'Caucasian'(%)' 28.3' 81.6'Asian'(%)' 68.4' 5.7'Hispanic'(%)' 0.7' 4.7'African'origin'(%)' 0.2' 4.5'Other'(%)' 2.4' 3.4'(2.2.2 Materials(Predictor+Variables+Anthropomorphic+tendencies:!I!employed!the!previously!validated!“Individual!Differences!in!Anthropomorphism!Quotient”!(IDAQ)!to!measure!anthropomorphism!(Waytz,!Cacioppo,!&!Epley,!2010a).!This!scale!measures!the!tendency!to!project!human!like!mental!states!such!as!consciousness,!free!will!and!emotions!onto!machines,!nature!and!animals!(e.g.,!To!what!extent!does!the!ocean!have!! 26!consciousness?!To!what!extent!do!cows!have!intentions?).!I!also!used!a!second!measure!of!anthropomorphism!in!my!student!sample,!having!participants!rate!natural!scenes!such!as!mountains!and!volcanoes!using!anthropomorphic!(conscious,!angry)!or!non[anthropomorphic!(large,!high)!concepts!(see!Norenzayan,!Hansen,!&!Cady,!2008)!(Student!Sample!α=.92).!I!did!not!include!this!measure!in!the!adult!sample!because!the!results!from!the!two!different!anthropomorphism!measures!produced!identical!results!(measures!combined!α=.89).!Dualism.!I!measured!dualism!with!Stanovich’s!(1989)!“Dualism!Scale”.!This!scale!was!chosen!because!it!has!no!content!that!could!be!interpreted!as!overtly!religious!in!nature!(e.g.,!“The!‘self’!I!introspect!about!controls!both!the!mind!and!the!brain”!and!“Mental!processes!are!the!result!of!activity!in!my!nervous!system(R)”).!The!single!item!question!dealing!with!afterlife!beliefs!was!removed!from!the!scale.!I!used!a!subset!of!10!dualism!items!in!the!student!sample,!but!returned!to!the!complete!scale!in!the!adult!sample!to!get!a!more!reliable!measure!(Student!sample!α!=!.68;!Adult!sample!α=.83).!Teleology.!There!is!no!existing!scale!to!measure!individual!differences!in!teleological!intuitions.!Therefore,!I!used!a!series!of!statements!created!by!Kelemen!and!Rosset!(2009)!to!test!adult!teleological!tendencies!in!experimental!tasks!(e.g.,!Earthworms!tunnel!underground!to!aerate!the!soil;!The!sun!makes!light!so!that!plants!can!photosynthesize).!These!statements!were!originally!used!to!examine!the!influence!of!time!pressure!on!teleological!thinking.!Levels!of!agreement!were!recorded!using!a!seven!point!Likert!scale!(Student!sample!α!=!.91;!Adult!sample!α=.86).!! 27!Mentalizing.!I!used!the!“Empathy!Quotient”!to!measure!mentalizing!(Baron[Cohen!&!Wheelwright,!2004).!We!chose!this!measure!because!it!has!been!used!extensively!to!detect!individual!differences!in!adult!mentalizing!tendencies,!including!perspective!taking,!interest!in!others’!beliefs!and!desires,!and!understanding!emotions!(e.g.,!I!often!find!it!difficult!to!judge!if!someone!is!rude!or!polite!(R);!I!am!good!at!predicting!how!someone!will!feel.).!This!measure!is!well!suited!to!assess!aspects!of!mentalizing!most!likely!to!be!related!to!the!belief!in!God,!as!has!been!shown!before!(e.g.!Norenzayan!et!al.,!2012).!Other!adult!mentalizing!tasks!based!on!false!belief!or!beliefs!different!from!one’s!own!(see!Apperly,!Back,!Samson,!&!France,!2008;!Birch!&!Bloom,!2007)!are!less!relevant!to!supernatural!beings,!because!gods!are!less!likely!to!have!false!beliefs!(Knight,!Sousa,!Barrett,!&!Atran,!2004)!and!people!seem!to!attribute!beliefs!to!God!that!they!themselves!hold!(Epley,!Converse,!Delbosc,!Monteleone,!&!Cacioppo,!2009).!3.2!Outcome!Variables!! Belief+in+God.!I!measured!belief!in!God!using!three!questions!(I!believe!in!God,!I!believe!in!a!divine!being!who!is!involved!in!my!life,!There!is!no!god!or!higher!power!in!the!universe)!(Student!sample!α!=!.85;!Adult!sample!α=.93).!These!three!items!have!good!construct!validity,!as!they!correlate!highly!with!other!measures!of!religious!belief,!such!as!Intuitive!belief!in!God!(r(916)=.84,!p<.001)!(Gervais!&!Norenzayan,!2012)!and!the!“Spiritual!Well!Being!Scale”!(r(916)=.86,!p<.001)!(Bufford,!Paloutzian,!&!Ellison,!1991).!!Life’s+Purpose.!I!created!a!3[item!measure!to!assess!this!construct,!with!one!reverse[scored!item!(Things!in!my!life!happen!for!a!reason;!There!is!a!discernable!! 28!purpose!to!the!events!of!my!life;!Many!things!that!happen!to!me!are!random!or!coincidental)!(Student!sample!α!=!.74;!Adult!sample!α=.78).!These!items!were!chosen!to!reflect!the!type!of!intentionally[driven!purpose!that!has!been!discussed!previously!in!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!literature!(see!Bering,!2002;!2003a).!In!addition,!I!created!this!3[item!scale!rather!than!using!existing!scales!(Crumbaugh,!1968)!so!as!to!avoid!conflating!belief!in!life’s!purpose!with!deficits!in!meaning!and!depressive!or!suicidal!tendencies!(e.g.,!“With!regard!to!suicide,!I!have:!thought!of!it!seriously!as!a!way!out!(1)!—!never!given!it!a!second!thought!(7).”)!Both!Belief!in!God!and!Life’s!Purpose!were!measured!on!an!8!point!Likert!scale.!!Paranormal+Belief.!We!adapted!the!paranormal!belief!scale!(Tobacyk,!2004).!I!removed!the!religiosity!and!the!extraordinary!creatures!subscales!before!administering!the!scale!to!my!participants.!The!religiosity!subscale!was!removed!because!it!offered!confounds!with!my!belief!in!God!measure,!and!the!extraordinary!creatures!subscale!was!removed!because!it!was!based!on!largely!culturally!bound!creatures!(e.g.,!the!Loch!Ness!monster!and!the!Yeti)!which!may!have!been!unfamiliar!to!our!participants,!and!because!these!creatures!may!or!may!not!be!seen!as!being!supernatural.!They!are!only!‘extraordinary’!because!they!don’t!exist,!not!because!they!have!any!supernatural!powers!or!relevance!(e.g.,!Some!individuals!are!able!to!levitate!(lift)!objects!through!mental!forces;!Astrology!is!a!way!to!accurately!predict!the!future.)(Student!sample!α!=!.93;!Adult!sample!α=.95).!Cultural+Exposure+to+Religion.!In!the!adult!American!sample,!but!not!the!student!sample,!I!compiled!information!about!the!percentage!of!religious!adherents!in!each!person’s!local!area.!I!did!this!by!collecting!postal!codes!from!each!! 29!participant!and!matching!them!with!county[level!religious!adherence!from!a!large!database!of!religious!variables!(www.thearda.com).!It!has!been!argued!that!an!individual’s!claimed!church!attendance!is!often!inflated,!and!actual!attendance!data!gives!estimates!lower!than!US!national!estimates!based!on!self[report!attendance!(Brenner,!2011;!Hadaway,!Marler,!&!Chaves,!1993;!Hout!&!Greeley,!1987).!To!overcome!this!issue,!I!relied!on!a!non[self[report!measure!of!church!adherence!supplied!by!churches!in!each!county.!Adherence!numbers!are!made!up!of!church!members!and!their!children,!and!those!who!regularly!attend!services.!Other!work!has!similarly!used!church!attendance!records!as!a!reliable,!though!imperfect!estimate!of!attendance!(see!Finke!&!Stark,!2005).!I!chose!this!measure!because!membership!in!a!church!could!be!considered!a!credible!display!of!religious!commitment!(Henrich,!2009).!In!turn,!exposure!to!such!displays!is!theorized!to!cause!greater!levels!of!belief.!!2.3 Results(2.3.1 Rationale(for(Statistical(Analyses(! The!theorized!path!model!was!fit!to!the!data!using!the!statistical!program!EQS!(Bentler,!2006).!A!path!model!was!used!because!it!allows!me!to!test!all!the!hypothesized!relationships!simultaneously!and!thus!model!each!relationship!while!accounting!for!the!variance!and!covariance!associated!with!all!other!relationships!(see!Ullman!&!Bentler,!2012).!This!method!allows!me!to!test!specific!relationships!between!multiple!independent!variables!and!dependent!by!including!some!paths!and!excluding!others!(e.g.!excluding!the!direct!relationship!between!mentalizing!! 30!and!belief!in!God)!without!running!multiple!tests!that!could!inflate!type[I!error.!An!expected!covariance!matrix!is!created!from!the!model!and!compared!to!the!covariance!matrix!of!the!raw!data.!All!straight!lines!in!the!model!represent!direct!predictions!(regression!coefficients),!whereas!the!curved!arrows!are!correlations!between!the!residuals!of!these!relationships.!These!arrows!represent!the!remaining!relationships!between!the!variables!that!are!not!represented!in!my!theoretical!structure.!All!models!were!tested!using!a!X2!test!of!fit.!This!test!is!the!most!conservative!test!of!fit,!in!that!it!assumes!that!the!model!can!account!for!all!variance!in!the!sample.!A!non[significant!test!means!the!model!fits!the!data!by!demonstrating!that!the!residual!difference!between!the!variance!accounted!for!by!the!model!and!the!total!variance!in!the!sample!does!not!differ!significantly!from!zero.!Models!fit!estimates!were!obtained!by!full!information!maximum!likelihood!estimations!(FIML;!see!Bentler,!2006;!Enders,!2001)!to!deal!with!a!small!amount!of!missing!data.!The!Yuan[Bentler!robust!chi[square!test!(Yuan!&!Bentler,!2000)!was!used!to!deal!with!some!non[normality!in!the!data!(normalized!estimate!=!4.45).!2.3.2 Sample(1(! The!model!fit!the!data!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(4,!N=492)=6.80,+p=.15;!CFI=.99;!RMSEA=.04;!See!Fig.!2.1).!The!model!we!predicted!accounted!for!the!relationships!found!in!the!data,!suggesting!that!cognitive!biases!do!predict!religious!belief,!paranormal!belief!and!life’s!purpose.!Correlations!and!standard!deviations!for!this!sample!can!be!found!in!Table!2.2.!When!assessing!individual!paths,!several!paths!were!found!to!not!be!significant.!These!non[significant!paths!mostly!came!from!the!! 31!mentalizing!measure.!Despite!being!non[significant,!these!paths!mediate!the!direct!relationship!between!mentalizing!and!religiosity!and!are!required!for!model!fit.!As!mentalizing!is!a!key!part!of!our!model,!we!chose!to!leave!it!in!the!model!and!retested!this!with!an!adult!sample!(sample!2;!means!and!standard!deviations!for!both!samples!can!be!found!in!Table!2.3).!!Table'2.2'–'Correlation'matrix,'student'Canadian'sample;'N=492'(reliabilities'in'the'diagonal).'' Mental' Dualism' Teleo' Anthro' Anthro'pic' God'' Para.' Purpose'Mentalizing' (.87)' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'Dualism' .07' (.68)' ' ' ' ' ' 'Teleology' .05' .26**' (.91)' ' ' ' ' 'Anthro' +.08' .15*' .15*' (.86)' ' ' ' 'Anthro'pic' +.08' .27**' .27**' .47**' (.92)' ' ' 'God'Belief' .10†' .41**' .20**' .10†' .14*' (.85)' ' 'Paranormal' +.03' .43**' .18**' .36**' .44**' .31**' (.93)' 'Purpose' .11†' .49**' .29**' .13†' .19**' .62**' .37**' (.74)'SD' 7.82' .80' 1.23' 1.3' 1.44' 1.78' 1.11' 1.50'†p<.10,!*p<.05,!**p≤.01.!Scale!alphas!on!diagonal.!All!p[values!calculated!with!a!Bonferroni!correction.!! Table'2.3'+'Mean'and'standard'deviations'for'both'samples.'( Student(Sample( Adult(Sample(Measure( Mean( SD( Mean( SD(Mentalizing( 22.62' 7.82' 22.14' 8.90'Anthropomorphism( 3.79' 1.33' 3.37' 1.23'Dualism( 3.83' .81' 3.83' .75'Teleology( 4.34' 1.23' 4.90' 1.11'God(Belief( 4.86' 2.11' 5.55' 2.62'Paranormal(Belief( 3.05' 1.11' 2.99' 1.31'Purpose( 4.85' 1.55' 5.04' 1.67'!! 32!When!comparing!these!two!samples,!it!is!worth!noting!that!although!the!means!for!mentalizing!between!the!two!samples!are!not!significantly!different!(Mdiff=!.48,!t(1113.24)=1.05,!p=.29),!the!variance!of!the!student!sample!was!significantly!lower!than!that!of!the!adult!sample!(F(1406)=12.66,!p<.001).!It!is!also!worth!noting!that,!within!the!student!sample,!our!Asian!population!scored!significantly!lower!on!this!measure!than!our!Caucasian!participants!(Mdiff=4.12,!t(478)=5.45,!p<.001).!This!low!variance!among!psychology!students!on!this!measure!may!make!it!difficult!to!detect!an!effect!that!is!actually!present,!especially!if!the!variance!we!are!getting!is!in!part!due!to!how!different!ethnic!groups!answer!these!questions!and!not!related!to!our!variables!of!interest.!!!'Figure'2.1:'Student'Sample'using'the'IDAQ'scale'as'a'measure'of'anthropomorphism.'Yuan+Bentler'X2(4,'N=492)=6.71,"p=.15;'CFI=.99;'RMSEA=.04.).'*p<.05.! 33!Based!on!this!difference!between!Asian!(n=335)!and!Caucasian!(n=146)!students!on!our!mentalizing!measure,!I!decided!to!conduct!a!two[groups!test!to!verify!that!the!pattern!of!our!findings!was!the!same!in!both!groups.!This!model!fit!even!after!constraining!all!error!variances!and!covariances,!and!all!regression!paths!to!be!equal!in!each!group!(Sattora[Bentler!X2(30)=!14.64,+p=.99),!suggesting!that!the!model!does!not!fit!differently!in!the!two!ethno[cultural!groups,!which!in!turn!suggests!that!our!model!generalized!across!these!two!ethno[cultural!groups.!"Given!influential!theories!that!place!the!origin!of!religious!belief!in!anthropomorphism,!it!was!surprising!that!the!path!from!anthropomorphism!to!belief!in!God!was!non[significant.!One!might!wonder!whether!this!null!result!is!a!reflection!of!any!problems!with!the!IDAQ!–!a!particular!measure!of!anthropomorphism!(Waytz,!Cacioppo,!&!Epley,!2010a).!Given!that!this!is!a!validated!scale!with!good!predictive!power,!I!find!this!unlikely.!However,!in!order!to!rule!out!this!possibility,!I!fit!this!model!a!second!time!using!the!alternative,!task[based!visual!measure!of!anthropomorphism!(Norenzayan!et!al.,!2008),!with!a!moderate[to[high!correlation!with!the!IDAQ!r(490)=.47,+p<.001."I!found!similar!fit!results!that!confirmed!the!previous!findings!with!the!IDAQ!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(4,!N=492)=!6.19,+p=.19;!CFI=.99;!RMSEA=.03)(see!Fig.!2.2),!suggesting!that!the!null!finding!regarding!anthropomorphism!is!not!an!artifact!of!the!particular!measure!I!used.!I!am!not!the!first!to!question!the!theorized!relationship!between!anthropomorphism!and!belief!in!God!(see!Bulbulia,!2004;!Lisdorf,!2007;!McKay!&!Dennett,!2010;!Weingarten!&!Chisholm,!2009).!Still,!this!is!only!a!preliminary!finding!on!this!topic.!!!! 34!!!Figure'2.2:'Student'Sample'with'anthropomorphic'pictures'measure.'Yuan+Bentler'X2(4,'N=492)=6.19,"p=.19;'CFI=.99;'RMSEA=.03).'*p<.05.'(!2.3.3 (Sample(2(! The!model!proposed!with!sample!1!was!fit!to!data!in!sample!2,!and!was!found!to!fit!(Yuan[Bentler!Χ2(4,!N=920)=8.25,+p=.08;!CFI!=!.99;!RMSEA=.034)!(See!Fig.!2.3).!Correlations!and!standard!deviations!for!this!sample!can!be!found!in!Table!2.4.!!!!!!!! 35!Table'2.4'–'Correlation'matrix,'adult'American'sample;'N=920'(reliabilities'in'the'diagonal).'' Mentalizing' Dualism' Teleology' Anthro' God'' Para.' Purpose' Adher.'Mentalizing' (.90)' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'Dualism' .12*' (.83)' ' ' ' ' ' 'Teleology' .15**' .22**' (.86)' ' ' ' ' 'Anthro' .09' .09' .11*' (.85)' ' ' ' 'God'Belief' .10*' .42**' .12**' .05' (.93)' ' ' 'Paranormal' .12**' .33**' .19**' .31**' .29**' (.94)' ' 'Purpose' .14**' .39**' .18**' .14**' .62**' .33**' (.78)' 'Adherents' +.01' .04' .001' +.08' .10*' +.04' .04' +++'SD' 8.89' .76' 1.12' 1.23' 2.62' 1.31' 1.67' 16.44'*p<.05,!**p≤.01.!Scale!alphas!on!diagonal.!All!p[values!calculated!with!a!Bonferroni!correction!!It!has!been!noted!that!that!females!are,!on!average,!more!religious!than!males!(Walter!&!Davie,!1998).!Consistent!with!this,!in!my!sample,!females!scored!significantly!higher!than!males!on!all!outcome!variables!(see!Table!2.5).!Because!of!this,!I!wished!to!see!if!this!model!is!equivalent!in!both!genders.!This!was!not!tested!in!the!student!sample!because!the!large!ratio!of!females!to!males!caused!the!model!to!not!be!identified!(i.e.!failed!to!find!a!solution).!Using!a!two[group!model!in!our!larger!adult!sample!(308!males,!609!females,!2!missing),!I!found!that!the!model!fit!even!after!constraining!all!error!variances!and!covariances,!and!all!regression!paths!to!be!equal!in!each!group!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(30)=16.61,+p=.98).!This!suggests!that!the!path!model!had!similar!explanatory!power!in!both!men!and!women,!despite!the!fact!that,!on!average,!women!scored!higher!than!men!on!religious!variables,!supporting!previous!findings!(Norenzayan!et!al.,!2012;!Roth!&!Kroll,!2007;!Stark,!2002).!'''! 36!'!Figure'2.3:'Adult'American'Sample.'(Yuan+Bentler'Χ2(4,'N=920)=8.25,"p=.08;'CFI'='.99;'RMSEA=.03).'*p<.05.''!Table'2.5'–'Male'and'female'mean'differences,'adult'sample.''' Anthro' Teleology' Dualism' Mentalizing' Paranorm' Purpose' Religiosity'Male' 3.14' 4.70' 3.68' 19.09' 2.63' 4.58' 4.61'Female' 3.48' 5.00' 3.90' 23.67' 3.18' 5.27' 5.31't+test' t(915)=4.01,'p<.001' t(915)=3.79,'p<.001' t(915)=4.09,'p<.001' t(914)=7.59,'p<.001' t(915)=6.03,'p<.001' t(914)=5.99,'p<.001' t(914)=4.45,'p<.001'!!Finally,!I!tested!for!the!effect!of!cultural!learning!on!religious!belief.!I!added!the!percentage!of!religious!adherents!living!in!a!person’s!county!as!an!additional!predictor!variable!(based!on!postal!codes!provided!by!participants).!As!expected,!living!in!an!area!with!greater!religious!attendance!increased!the!odds!of!believing!in!God,!largely!independently!of!the!influence!of!the!cognitive!biases.!The!only!! 37!exception!was!anthropomorphism.!I!needed!to!include!a!path!from!the!proportion!of!religious!adherence!to!anthropomorphism!(a!negative!relationship)!(λ=![.09,!p<.05)!for!the!model!to!fit!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(9)=10.80,+p=.29;!CFI=.99;!RMSEA=.02)(see!Fig.!2.4).!2.3.4 Preliminary(Summary(! To!summarize,!I!found!that!individual!differences!in!mentalizing!tendencies!encouraged!mind[body!dualism,!teleology,!and!anthropomorphism!(albeit!weakly);!dualism,!and!to!a!lesser!extent!teleology!in!turn!led!to!belief!in!God,!belief!in!paranormal!events,!and!belief!in!life!having!an!underlying!and!possibly!transcendental!purpose.!Although!the!relationships!between!mentalizing!and!the!other!cognitive!biases!are!significant!in!the!adult!sample!but!not!the!students!one,!theoretical!predictions!and!previous!research!leads!me!to!conclude!this!is!likely!to!be!a!sample!issue!rather!then!an!issue!with!the!model.!This!is!further!supported!by!a!significant!difference!in!the!variance!of!this!measure!between!the!two!samples.!Anthropomorphic!tendencies!failed!to!predict!belief!in!God,!but!they!did!predict!paranormal!belief,!and,!to!a!much!lesser!extent,!belief!that!life!has!a!purpose.!This!model!was!robust!to!ethno[cultural!variation!present!in!our!sample,!and!appeared!in!both!men!and!women.!However,!so!far!we!have!not!addressed!possible!alternative!models!that!could!explain!the!data.!I!now!turn!to!several!such!plausible!alternatives!and!examine!whether!they!better!explain!our!results!than!the!current!model!under!consideration.!We!did!this!using!the!adult!American!sample!that!had!a!! 38!large!sample!size,!allowing!for!statistical!power!to!test!alternative!competing!models.!!!'Figure'2.4:'Adult'American'Sample,'with'the'percentage'of'religious'adherents'in'local'area'(county'level)'as'an'additional'variable.'(Yuan+Bentler'X2(9)=10.80,"p=.29;'CFI=.99;'RMSEA=.02).'*p<.05.'!2.3.5 Alternative(Models(! Reverse+causation:!An!obvious!criticism!of!any!cognitive!hypothesis!of!religious!belief!studied!with!correlational!methodology!is!reverse!causation:!religious!engagement!may!intensify!cognitive!tendencies!rather!than!the!other!way!around.!In!this!latter!view,!people!are!prone!to!anthropomorphizing!the!world,!seeing!minds!as!separate!from!bodies,!and!engaging!in!teleological!thinking,!because!of!the!religious!beliefs!they!hold.!I!tested!this!reverse[causation!hypothesis!by!reversing!the!model.!I!tested!whether!belief!in!God,!life’s!purpose!and!paranormal!belief!could!be!encouraged!by!mentalizing,!and!in!turn!leading!to!teleological!! 39!thinking,!anthropomorphism!and!dualism.!This!model!did!not!fit!the!data!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(4)=21.38,+p<.001,!CFI=.99,!RMSEA=.07)!(see!Fig.!2.5).!Similarly,!when!I!switched!belief!in!God!to!lead!to!all!other!variables,!that!model!did!not!fit!the!data!either,!even!after!enough!errors!were!correlated!(based!on!the!largest!residuals)!to!match!the!original!model’s!degrees!of!freedom!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(4)=21.68,+p<.001,!CFI=.98,!RMSEA=.07).!+Additional+Paths:!I!tested!whether!mentalizing!contributes!to!religious!belief!directly.!In!other!words,!I!explicitly!tested!the!idea!that!the!relationship!of!mentalizing!to!the!outcome!measures!is!mediated!by!its!relationship!to!dualism,!anthropomorphism!and!teleology.!A!chi[squared!difference!test!was!conducted!after!adding!in!a!direct!path!from!mentalizing!to!belief!in!God.!However,!the!model!fit!was!not!significantly!improved!(X2(1)=1.90,+p=.17).!The!model!fit!did!not!improve!when!adding!a!direct!path!between!mentalizing!and!life’s!purpose!(X2(1)=!3.25,+p=.07)!nor!when!both!extra!paths!were!added!together!(X2(2)=!5.06,+p=.08).!These!analyses!suggest!that!dualism!and!teleology!indeed!mediate!the!path!from!mentalizing!to!religious!belief.!!Purpose+causing+belief:!It!might!be!argued!that!believing!in!life’s!purpose!comes!first,!which!then!encourages!people!to!seek!God.!This!alternative!was!also!tested!but!did!not!receive!support.!Switching!the!direction!of!the!relationship!between!life’s!purpose!and!belief!in!God!to!make!purpose!predict!belief!in!God!caused!the!model!to!no!longer!fit!the!data!(Yuan[Bentler!X2(4)=11.38,+p=.02,!CFI=.99,!RMSEA=.06).!!! 40!!Figure'2.5:'Reverse'Causation'Model,'Adult'American'Sample,'(Yuan+Bentler'X2(4)=21.38,'p<.001,'CFI=.99,'RMSEA=.07)'!2.4 Discussion(!This!research!contributes!to!our!current!understanding!of!the!cognitive!tendencies!that!underlie!supernatural!belief!in!several!important!ways.!First,!my!analysis!suggests!that!the!relationships!are!directional,!going!from!cognitive!biases!to!beliefs!and!not!the!other!way!around.!The!addition!of!the!religious!adherence!measure!strengthens!this!directionality!argument.!The!proportion!of!religious!adherents!in!an!individual’s!county!predicted!belief!in!God,!but!it!did!not!predict!greater!levels!of!dualism!or!teleology,!implying!that!cognitive!biases!and!cultural!learning!independently!(and!probably!interactively)!contribute!to!religious!belief—they!are!in!no!way!mutually!exclusive!explanations.!Interestingly,!the!proportion!of!religious!adherents!in!one’s!community!predicted!anthropomorphism!negatively,!suggesting!that!high!rates!of!Christianity!in!a!community!might!actually!suppress!! 41!anthropomorphic!tendencies.!Neither!of!these!relationships!is!particularly!strong!and!should!be!treated!with!caution.!Moreover,!this!cultural!measure!has!its!limitations.!It!does!not!account,!for!example,!for!those!who!have!recently!moved!to!an!area!and!might,!therefore,!be!relatively!unaffected!by!levels!of!religiosity!in!that!neighborhood,!nor!does!it!account!for!how!much!a!person!interacts!with!the!religious!adherents!in!their!county.!Still,!I!do!find!a!relationship!in!the!direction!we!would!predict!from!cultural!explanations!(Gervais!et!al.,!2011;!Henrich!et!al.,!2006).!Greater!exposure!to!religious!attendance!predicts!more!belief!in!God.!2.4.1 Dualism(as(a(Key(Intuition(Underlying(Religious(Beliefs(! Of!the!cognitive!biases!I!included!in!this!model,!dualism!emerged!as!the!strongest!predictor!of!all!three!beliefs!in!both!samples.!I!found!a!significant!relationship!to!life’s!purpose,!even!beyond!the!indirect!relationship!through!religious!belief.!Dualism!is,!theoretically,!a!necessary!condition!to!belief!in!any!disembodied!supernatural!being!(Bloom,!2005;!2007).!This!includes!gods,!ghosts,!spirits,!and!the!soul.!The!more!strongly!people!believe!minds!and!bodies!as!separate,!the!more!likely!they!are!to!find!these!types!of!beings!intuitively!plausible.!The!relationship!between!dualism!and!life’s!purpose!is!less!straightforward.!It!is!possible!that!the!belief!that!the!mind!is!separate!from!the!body!allows!people!to!see!minds,!and!therefore!intention,!everywhere!(see!Bering,!2002;!2003a).!Dualism!may!also!infuse!life!with!greater!meaning!to!the!extent!that!it!encourages!the!belief!that!a!part!of!one’s!self!is!not!identical!with!the!body!and,!therefore,!may!continue!to!exist!after!bodily!death.!! 42!2.4.2 The(Role(of(Anthropomorphism(! Anthropomorphism,!operationalized!as!the!tendency!to!project!human[like!attributes!to!non[human!entities,!was!not!related!to!belief!in!God!in!my!model.!In!the!adult!sample,!it!was!not!related!to!belief!in!God!even!in!a!zero[order!correlation.!This!may!be!surprising!given!theories!that!argue!that!anthropomorphism!and!hyperactive!agency!detection!are!underlying!features!of!all!supernatural!belief!(Barrett,!2000;!2004;!2008;!Guthrie,!1993;!1996).!It!is!less!surprising!when!one!considers!that!the!religious!conviction!of!most!of!our!sample!is!Christian!or!living!in!a!majority[Christian!culture.!In!Christianity,!and!in!Abrahamic!religions!in!general,!God!is!anthropomorphized!in!the!important!sense!that!God!has!human[like!mental!characteristics.!God!doesn’t!fit!into!the!template!of!animism!in!the!Christian!tradition;!he!is!super[human,!not!human[like.!He!is!a!mega[mind!without!the!frailty!of!a!human!body!and!without!basic!human!needs,!like!hunger!or!feelings!(H.!M.!Gray!et!al.,!2007).!Perhaps!more!importantly,!the!negative!relationship!between!the!proportion!of!local!religious!adherents!and!anthropomorphism!suggests!that!Christian!believers!may!actually!suppress!the!tendency!to!anthropomorphize!the!world.!This!is!possibly!due!to!the!prohibition!of!animistic!tendencies!in!Christian!(and!more!broadly,!Abrahamic)!folk!theology,!in!which!attributing!human[like!mental!states!to!non[humans,!such!as!seeing!spirits!in!mountains!or!trees,!goes!contrary!to!religious!teachings,!and!in!some!instances!is!considered!idolatry.!Despite!the!lack!of!any!relationship!between!anthropomorphism!and!belief!in!God,!anthropomorphism!still!played!an!important!role!in!other!types!of!beliefs.!Anthropomorphism!predicted!paranormal!belief.!Paranormal!beliefs!may!be!more!! 43!influenced!by!individual!differences!in!this!dimension!because!they!are!less!strongly!regulated!by!religious!institutions!(at!least!in!the!West).!For!North!Americans,!belief!in!astrology!and!ESP!are!not!culturally!sanctioned!the!way!that!belief!in!God!is.!Rarely!are!people!ousted!from!their!family!and!community!for!questioning!the!accuracy!of!divination!or!the!plausibility!of!astral!projection.!It!is!possible!that!these!types!of!beliefs!are!closer!to!our!supernatural!intuitions!about!the!world.!People!may!naturally!be!superstitious!and!prone!to!believing!in!some!supernatural!concepts,!but!may!not!passionately!commit!to!God!without!additional!cultural!support!(Gervais!et!al.,!2011).!2.4.3 Teleology(! Teleology!was!a!predictor!of!all!three!beliefs,!but!it!was!the!weakest!one.!Though!not!all!the!paths!from!teleology!are!significant,!they!are!all!necessary!for!model!fit.!There!are!several!possible!reasons!for!why!these!links!are!so!weak.!It!may!be!that!teleology,!as!an!over[extension!of!artifact!cognition,!really!doesn’t!influence!supernatural!beliefs!all!that!much,!or!it!could!be!that!our!measure!of!this!trait!did!not!quite!capture!all!that!I!intended!it!to.!It!is!hard!to!rule!this!second!option!out,!as!this!measure!has!not!been!validated!as!an!individual!difference!construct.!Nevertheless,!my!results!are!consistent!with!recent!findings!(Kelemen!et!al.,!2013),!showing!that!teleological!thinking!is!related!to!belief!in!God!and!belief!in!spiritual!Gaia[type!beliefs!in!Mother!Nature.!At!this!point,!no!hard!conclusions!can!be!made!on!the!role!of!teleology,!other!than!that!our!measure!does!appear!to!be!capturing!at!least!some!of!the!variance!in!religious!and!paranormal!belief.!!! 44!2.4.4 Life’s(Purpose(and(Belief(in(God(! The!sense!that!there!is!some!underlying!purpose!to!life!has!been!argued!to!be!a!residual!of!supernatural!belief!among!the!non[religious.!Though!many!people!have!managed!to!stop!believing!in!God,!the!sense!that!there!is!some!purposeful!intentionality!behind!life!remains!entrenched!(Bering,!2002;!2003b;!Slingerland,!2008).!My!results!do!not!contradict!this!claim,!but!they!do!suggest!a!somewhat!more!complex!picture.!Although!our!cognitive!biases!remain!predictors!of!purpose!above!and!beyond!the!variance!predicted!by!belief!in!God,!belief!in!God!remains!the!strongest!predictor.!Further,!the!model!no!longer!passed!the!test!of!fit!when!we!reversed!this!relationship!to!have!belief!in!purpose!lead!to!belief!in!God.!This!suggests!that!much!of!the!variance!in!belief!in!life’s!purpose!comes!from!belief!in!God.!The!remaining!relationships!with!my!cognitive!biases!could!be!seen!as!an!intuition!towards!purpose!above!and!beyond!what!is!encouraged!by!belief!in!God,!or!it!could!be!something!left!over!from!growing!up!in!a!largely!Protestant!Christian!culture.!Going!beyond!a!Christian!sample!may!make!it!possible!to!determine!which!of!these!views!is!accurate.!Regardless,!it!does!not!seem!to!be!the!case!that!purpose!is!another!sort!of!intuition!that!leads!to!belief!in!a!supernatural!power.!Rather,!belief!in!God!appears!to!lead!to!a!greater!sense!that!there!is!a!purpose!to!life.!2.4.5 Limitations(and(Future(Directions(!!The!quest!for!what!explains!religious!belief!and!disbelief!is!an!important!and!understudied!area!of!psychological!research.!My!findings!provide!empirical!support!for!the!idea!that!naturally!emerging!cognitive!tendencies!predispose!human!minds!! 45!towards!religious!beliefs.!A!particular!strength!of!our!findings!is!my!assessment!of!the!interactions!of!a!converging!set!of!cognitive!biases!in!a!single!theoretical!model,!which!explained!several!types!of!supernatural!beliefs.!Yet,!there!are!several!limitations!to!the!current!findings.!My!results!are!correlational,!and!although!based!on!path!analyses!that!assessed!alternative!models!(including!reverse!causation)!that!found!them!to!be!lacking,!I!cannot!conclusively!claim!causality!without!further!experimental!work.!Additionally,!I!relied!on!mostly!self[report!measures!of!cognitive!biases!that!have!their!limitations.!These!measures!yielded!good!results,!but!future!research!can!further!advance!this!work!by!using!non[self[report!measures.!Moreover,!additional!work!needs!to!be!done!to!determine!both!what!cognitive!traits!lead!to!belief!as!well!as!how!belief!is!culturally!transmitted!within!a!community!and!through!generations.!To!really!appreciate!the!complexity!of!this!question,!we!must!recognize!that!all!supernatural!beliefs!are!not!identical!and!may!not!develop!in!the!same!way.!Christianity,!like!other!world!religions,!has!a!long!cultural!tradition!behind!it!and!upholding!it.!To!truly!comprehend!what!causes!supernatural!beliefs!it!is!important!to!examine!beliefs,!or!even!superstitions,!that!have!less!institutional!force!behind!them!as!well!as!full[fledged!religious!belief.!! 46!Chapter(3: Secularization(and(the(Spiritual(Marketplace(in(the(Czech(Republic(and(Slovakia(!3.1 Introduction(The!modern!west!has!experienced!levels!of!wealth!and!freedom!never!before!seen!in!human!history.!People!live!longer,!have!more!then!they!ever!have!before,!and!in!many!places!these!changes!in!the!human!condition!have!coincided!with!a!widespread!decline!in!religious!participation!(Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004).!This!decline!has!not!gone!unnoticed!by!social!scientists,!leading!to!a!number!of!theories!that!attempt!to!account!for!this!phenomenon.!Understanding!the!reasons!people!leave—or!don’t!leave—a!religion!they!were!raised!in!can!shed!light!on!many!of!the!cultural!and!social!reasons!religions!rise!and!fall,!as!well!as!why!individuals!gain!or!lose!religious!belief.!These!factors!work!in!addition!to!the!cognitive!foundations!explored!in!the!previous!chapter.!Understanding!the!role!they!play!both!separately!and!in!tandem!with!cognition!is!an!important!piece!of!the!puzzle!of!religious!beliefs.!!In!this!chapter,!I!examine!several!different!theories!of!religiosity!and!secularization!and!looked!at!how!they!apply!to!the!case!study!of!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia.!These!two!countries!were!chosen!because!of!their!similar!histories,!cultures,!languages!and!geographic!location,!but!striking!religious!differences.!The!Czech!Republic!is!a!predominantly!atheistic!country,!and!Slovakia!is!a!predominantly!religious!country.!I!explore!and!compare!how!various!theories!account!for!the!variance!in!religiosity!within!and!between!these!two!countries.!This!offers!a!unique!opportunity!to!explore!the!possible!antecedents!of!religiosity!and!! 47!secularization!in!a!real!world!setting!while!controlling!for!many!potentially!confounding!factors.!!One!of!the!earliest!of!these!theories!is!the!secularization!theory!(see!Berger,!1967;!Durkheim,!Cosman,!&!Cladis,!1912;!Martin,!1968;!Weber,!1904;!Wilson,!1966)!which!claims!that!engines!of!modernization,!industrialization,!urbanization!and!education!drive!the!inevitable!decline!of!religious!belief!(Hadden,!1987;!also!see!Stark,!1999).!As!societies!develop,!the!people!in!those!societies!come!to!see!religious!concepts!as!less!plausible!and!begin!to!leave!religion!en+masse+in!favor!of!more!secular!belief!systems,!like!science.!This!theory!was!held!with!such!certainty!in!the!1960s!that!it!led!a!prominent!sociologist,!Peter!Berger!(1968),!to!claim!in!the!New+York+Times,!that!"[by]!the!21st!century,!religious!believers!are!likely!to!be!found!only!in!small!sects,!huddled!together!to!resist!a!worldwide!secular!culture”.!Notably,!Berger!recanted!this!belief!later!in!light!of!the!evidence!to!the!contrary!(Berger,!1999).!More!recently,!these!ideas!have!been!adopted!by!the!New!Atheists!to!support!a!belief!in!our!supposedly!inevitable!secular!future!(see!Dawkins,!2006);!these!claims!have!not!been!well!supported!by!research.!Though!secularization!theory!has!persisted!in!its!appeal,!a!quick!look!at!the!world!today!suggests!that!the!decline!of!religion!is!not!as!inevitable!as!past!theorists!have!suggested.!Though!some!modernized!countries,!such!as!those!in!Scandinavia,!have!become!largely!non[religious,!others,!like!the!USA,!have!seen!only!modest!decline!(Zuckerman,!2008).!Overall,!the!percentage!of!religious!people!in!the!world!does!not!seem!to!be!decreasing!(Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004;!Stark,!1999).!Even!among!scientists,!often!lauded!as!the!most!analytic!and!therefore!least!religious!among!us,!! 48!religious!beliefs!are!not!uncommon!and!do!not!seem!to!be!declining.!In!1919,!a!study!was!conducted!on!the!religious!beliefs!of!American!scientists.!In!1996!the!survey!was!replicated!and!published!in!Nature+(Larson!&!Witham,!1997).!The!original!1919!survey!found!that!41.8%!of!scientists!that!believed!in!a!personal!God.!The!1996!survey!found!that!39.3%!of!scientists!that!believed!in!a!personal!God.!The!passing!of!80!years!showed!a!negligible!and!non[significant!decrease!of!2.5%!in!the!number!of!scientists!who!believed!in!God.!A!more!recent!Pew!Research!poll!conducted!in!2009!found!that!33%!of!American!scientists!believed!in!God!and!a!further!18%!believed!in!a!universal!spirit!or!a!higher!power.!Even!among!scientists,!religious!beliefs!do!not!seem!to!be!declining!at!any!notable!rate,!at!least!not!in!the!USA.!!Still,!the!secularization!theory!is!not!entirely!without!merit.!There!is!evidence!to!support!the!contention!that!modernization!and!education!are!related!to!a!decrease!in!religiosity,!albeit!with!some!variation!in!these!effects!(see!Gruber!&!Hungerman,!2008;!Hungerman,!2014;!McCleary!&!Barro,!2006).6!What!has!been!most!criticized!about!the!theory!is!its!view!of!secularization!as!a!unilateral!force!that!leads!to!the!inevitable!decline!of!religious!belief!(Hadden,!1987;!Stark,!1999).!This!idea!has!been!critiqued!as!overly!functionalistic,!ignoring!the!role!of!spiritual!feelings!and!emotions;!it!also!ignores!the!substantial!body!of!evidence!that!shows!that!religion!is!not!declining!with!modernization!everywhere!(Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004).!!Inevitable!secularization!has!been!replaced!by!a!broader!theory!of!secularization!that!takes!the!role!of!religious!emotions!into!account!(Gorski,!2000;!! 49!2003;!Sommerville,!1998;!2002).!The!new!aim!of!these!theories!has!become!to!explain!the!variation.!One!prominent!branch!of!this!work,!put!forward!by!Norris!and!Inglehart!(2004),!is!the!existential!anxiety!hypothesis.!In!this!theory,!religion!plays!a!prominent!role!in!helping!us!deal!with!our!existential!fears!of!death,!disease!and!destitution.!But!as!societies!modernize!and!create!institutions!such!as!welfare,!education!and!socialized!healthcare,!our!need!for!religion!as!a!coping!mechanism!declines.!Our!existential!anxieties!are!kept!at!bay!by!institutions!that!decrease!our!chances!of!dying!in!the!street.!Religion,!therefore,!should!decline!in!places!that!look!after!their!population!with!strong!secular!institutions.!!!An!alternative!to!the!secularization!theory!is!the!religious!marketplace!theory.!This!theory,!originally!championed!by!Stark!and!Bainbridge!(1985),!claims!that!the!apparent!decline!of!religious!belief!is!an!illusion.!Rather!than!belief!disappearing!in!the!modern!world,!a!wider!market!of!alternative!beliefs!systems,!including!new!religious!movements!and!cults,!is!replacing!traditional!religious!beliefs!in!Western!culture.!The!secularization!of!institutions,!especially!the!separation!of!church!and!state!and!the!movement!towards!religious!freedom,!allow!alternative!supernatural!beliefs!to!flourish.!The!decline!we!see!is!caused!by!people!leaving!a!specific!religious!group!for!a!wider!range!of!options,!many!of!which!contain!complex!supernatural!beliefs,!but!are!explicitly!considered!‘not!religious’!by!believers!(see!Roof,!1993).!Many!of!the!‘atheistic’!countries!still!have!high!rates!of!religion[like!beliefs,!but!these!beliefs!do!not!conform!to!the!traditional!religious!beliefs!of!those!countries!(Fuller,!2001).!Further,!this!apparent!decline!in!belief!is!exaggerated!by!an!overestimate!of!past!religiosity!(Stark,!1999).!In!many!places,!! 50!modernization!has!paralleled!an!increase!in!religiosity,!not!a!decline.!In!the!USA,!for!example,!religious!attendance!has!nearly!tripled!since!the!country’s!founding!(Finke!&!Stark,!2005),!and!many!Islamic!countries!have!become!more!religious!with!modernization!and!education!rather!than!less!(Ahmad,!1991;!Mutlu,!1996).!!The!foundation!of!the!marketplace!theory—that!some!people!will!always!remain!supernatural!believers!even!if!a!particular!religion!declines—parallels!the!branch!of!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!that!claims!religious!belief!to!be!a!natural!part!of!being!human!(Atran!&!Norenzayan,!2004;!Barrett,!2004;!Bloom,!2005;!Kelemen,!2004).!This!perspective—that!religion!is!a!byproduct!of!our!innate!cognitive!functions!and!therefore!intuitive—also!claims!that,!even!with!the!decline!of!religious!belief,!few!people!become!non[believers!in!the!truest!sense!of!the!word!(see!Geertz!&!Markússon,!2010).!Though!the!strong!version!of!this—that!atheism!cannot!exist—has!been!criticized!(see!Gervais!et!al.,!2011;!Norenzayan!&!Gervais,!2012),!individual!difference!in!these!tendencies!would!account!for!the!steady!prevalence!in!supernatural!believers!through!time.!Importantly,!we!can!expect!that!these!cognitive!biases!will!be!better!predictors!of!non[religious!supernatural!beliefs!then!religious!ones.!People!may!adopt!or!dismiss!religious!beliefs!for!cultural!reasons!unrelated!to!their!intuitions!towards!these!beliefs.!Other!supernatural!beliefs!will!have!less!specific!cultural!pressures!on!them.!!A!third!way!to!explain!why!religion!would!decline!in!some!countries!and!not!in!others!is!through!cultural!evolution!and!cultural!transmission!(Gervais!et!al.,!2011).!Humans!have!evolved!as!a!cultural!species:!we!expertly!pay!attention!and!learn!culture!from!those!around!us!(Henrich!&!Boyd,!1998;!e.g.!Henrich!&!Gil[White,!! 51!2001).!At!the!same!time,!the!long[term!maintenance!of!cultural!traditions!requires!mechanisms!that!ensure!high[fidelity!transmission!from!one!generation!to!the!next.!If!we!look!at!religious!traditions!as!cultural!practices!that!develop!and!change!over!time,!religions!will!change!or!disappear!when!the!fidelity!of!transmission!is!decreases.!Put!simply,!a!religion!declines!when!the!beliefs!and!practices!of!that!religion!fail!to!be!reliably!transferred!to!new!members!of!a!culture.!!There!are!several!mechanisms!of!cultural!transmission!that!are!likely!to!play!a!part!in!maintaining!a!religious!tradition.!I!have!chosen!to!focus!on!one!in!particular,!credibility!enhancing!displays!(CREDs;!Henrich,!2009).!The!CRED!theory!suggests!that!any!new!member!of!a!culture!(e.g.!a!child!or!an!immigrant)!will!be!more!likely!to!adopt!the!beliefs!and!practices!of!this!culture!if!members!of!that!culture!behave!in!a!way!that!makes!those!beliefs!and!practices!seem!important!and!sincere.!Behavioral!displays,!such!as!going!to!church,!paying!tithes,!or!sacrificing!livestock,!give!a!sense!of!dedication,!and!therefore!credibility,!to!a!person’s!beliefs.!A!bystander!will!recognize!that!it!is!unlikely!that!any!person!willing!to!give!a!portion!of!their!income!each!month!to!the!church!is!anything!but!truthful!in!their!belief.!If!the!bystander!is!exposed!to!enough!of!these!displays,!the!bystander!will!come!to!see!this!belief!as!important!and!maybe!worthy!of!their!own!sacrifice.!Simply!put,!seeing!people!make!sacrifices!for!their!religion!increases!the!chance!that!a!new!member!of!society!adopts!those!beliefs!and!maintains!them!throughout!their!lifetime.!The!decline!in!belief!happens!when!people!are!no!longer!exposed!to!credible!displays!of!belief.!!! 52!Like!so!many!competing!theories!with!plausible!arguments!on!all!sides,!each!of!these!theories!are!right!to!some!degree.!The!idea!of!rational!thought!leading!to!declines!in!religiosity!has!some!support!in!the!psychological!literature.!Recent!findings!have!shown!that!people!who!are!better!analytic!thinkers!are!less!religious!on!average,!and!that!making!people!think!analytically!reduces!their!ratings!of!their!own!religiosity!(Gervais!&!Norenzayan,!2012;!Shenhav!et!al.,!2012).!Though!this!relationship!appears!to!be!a!real!one,!it!is!not!yet!clear!if!it!contributes!to!the!decline!in!supernatural!belief!overall!or!just!to!specific!beliefs!that!are!harder!to!reconcile!with!a!scientific!worldview.!Further,!there!is!compelling!evidence!that!as!other!institutions!take!over!services!once!provided!by!the!church!and!remove!anxieties!that!used!to!be!the!domain!of!religious!belief,!religion!does!decline!(Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004).!!The!marketplace!theory,!paired!with!the!idea!that!the!high!religiosity!of!the!past!has!been!exaggerated,!offers!up!a!different!set!of!possibilities:!that!some!people!will!always!hold!some!type!of!supernatural!beliefs!within!in!a!society!and!what!changes!is!only!what!they!believe!in.!This!fits!well!with!both!cognitive!theories!of!religion!and!an!increasing!body!of!research!within!the!cognitive!science!of!religion.!It!supports!the!proposition!that!supernatural!belief!is!a!natural!part!of!being!human.!There!is!something!at!once!intuitive!and!appealing!in!these!beliefs.!Though!the!number!of!people!that!follow!a!specific!set!of!traditions!and!beliefs!can!be!pushed!around!by!culture,!some!number!of!people!will!remain!supernatural!believers,!regardless!of!the!religious!traditions!that!surround!them!(Willard!&!Norenzayan,!2013).!!! 53!3.1.1 The(Czech(Republic(and(Slovakia(! When!people!talk!about!atheistic!countries!and!large[scale!religious!decline,!they!are!frequently!referring!to!the!religious!decline!in!Europe!(Froese,!2004;!Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004;!Zuckerman,!2008).!Though!the!decline!in!parts!of!Europe,!especially!Scandinavia,!is!indeed!noteworthy,!the!overall!decline!has!been!inconsistent,!leaving!some!countries!predominantly!atheistic,!while!others!maintain!a!religious!majority.!Much!ink!has!been!spilled!explaining!these!differences!(see!Gorski,!2003).!The!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!fall!on!either!side!of!this!secular/religious!divide.!The!Czech!Republic!boasts!the!title!of!the!least!religious!country!in!Europe,!with!only!14%!of!the!population!claiming!to!be!religious.!Slovakia!on!the!other!hand!has!a!Christian!majority,!with!76%!of!the!population!claiming!to!be!religious.!!The!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!offer!a!unique!opportunity!to!test!the!role!of!each!of!the!previously!mentioned!theories!of!secularization.!These!two!countries!share!similar!recent!histories,!cultures,!languages,!and!institutions.!They!were!the!same!country!from!1918!to!1993,!when!they!peaceably!split!into!two!separate!republics.!Soviet!communists!ruled!both!countries!between!1945!and!1989.!Despite!this,!their!religious!trajectories!in!the!past!half[century!have!differed!dramatically.!Notably,!the!Czech!republic!seems!to!be!the!outlier!in!the!region;!both!Poland!and!Hungry!are!similar!to!Slovakia!in!that!they!maintained!high!levels!of!religious!belief!after!the!fall!of!communism.!The!similarities!between!Czech!republic!and!Slovakia,!paired!with!their!enduring!difference!in!religious!belief,!make!them!an!ideal!natural!experiment!for!testing!theories!of!religious!belief.!!! 54!3.1.2 Historical(and(Cultural(Difference(! The!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!do!have!some!basic!demographic!differences.!The!Czech!Republic!is!more!urban,!has!a!higher!population!density,!and!is!somewhat!wealthier!with!a!more!educated!population!than!Slovakia.!Slovakia!also!has!a!higher!unemployment!rate!than!the!Czech!Republic.!Though!some!of!these!things,!especially!urbanity!and!education,!have!been!related!to!declines!in!religious!belief!(see!Albrecht!&!Heaton,!1984),!the!differences!here!are!not!large!enough!to!account!for!the!vast!difference!in!religiosity!(Froese,!2005).!What!is!more,!the!Czech!republic!is!by!no!means!the!wealthiest!or!the!most!urban!country!in!Europe,!yet!is!still!boasts!rates!of!disbelief!that!are!much!higher!than!its!more!developed!neighbors,!making!this!an!unlikely!cause!of!the!difference.!There!are!also!some!important!historical!differences!between!these!two!countries.!During!their!rule,!the!communist!regime!actively!suppressed!both!public!and!individual!religiosity!and!tried!to!substitute!it!with!the!party[oriented!Marxist!ideological!propaganda.!Religion!played!only!a!minor!role!in!public!life!during!this!time,!and!two!generations!in!both!countries!had!limited!exposure!to!religion!and!religious!rituals.!However,!in!Slovakia!and!Poland,!the!Roman!Catholic!Church!served!as!a!symbol!of!opposition!and!sanctuary!against!the!oppressing!regime.!This!tie!with!national!identity!and!resistance!caused!the!church!to!gain!in!importance!and!credibility!during!the!communist!oppression.!This!was!manifest!in!the!religious!revivals!in!these!two!countries!in!the!1990s.!In!contrast,!the!Czech!Republic!showed!only!a!minor!temporary!increase!after!the!fall!of!the!iron!curtain,!and!has!continued!! 55!to!decline!in!recent!years!(Hamplova!&!Nespor,!2009;!Lužný!&!Navrátilová,!2001;!Minarik,!2014;!Nešpor,!2004)!!The!reason!for!this!difference!may!be!rooted!in!more!distant!history.!Participation!in!the!Catholic!Church!declined!after!protestant!Hussite!rebellions!in!15th!century.!The!Catholic!Church!took!hold!once!again!in!the!17th!century,!and!the!Czech!land!became!a!truly!Catholic!nation!once!again!(Hamplova!&!Nespor,!2009).!During!the!crucial!formation!period!of!the!Czech!nation!in!the!18th!century,!the!historical!period!of!the!Hussite!rebellion!was!the!glorified!as!part!of!the!national!revival!gradually!shifting!the!public!perception!on!the!Catholic!institutions!as!being!the!tools!of!Hapsburgs'!manipulation!and!oppression.!Church!membership!was!perceived!as!a!corrupt!relic!of!medieval!ages.!The!new!Czech!identity!was!mostly!based!on!nation,!social!class!and!scientific!worldview.!After!Czechoslovakia!gained!independence!in!1918,!about!1.5!out!of!13.5!million!of!members!of!Catholic!Church!abandoned!it.!!Despite!this!historical!skepticism!of!the!Catholic!Church,!as!late!as!1950,!76.4%!of!Czechs!considered!themselves!Catholic!and!93.9%!belonged!to!a!religious!group!(Hamplova!&!Nespor,!2009)(Fig.!3.1).!At!the!same!time,!the!history!of!skepticism!may!explain!some!of!why!the!communist!oppression!of!religion!had!such!a!different!impact!in!ongoing!religiosity!in!the!Czech!Republic!than!it!did!in!either!Slovakia!or!Poland.!The!Czech!people!did!not!see!Catholicism!as!an!important!part!of!who!they!were!as!a!nation.!Still,!even!in!1991,!shortly!after!the!fall!of!communism,!43.7%!of!Czechs!claimed!a!religious!affiliation!in!the!nation!census.!This!suggests!that!a!larger!portion!of!adult!Czechs!today!were!raised!in!religious!households!or!! 56!their!parents!were!raised!in!religious!households,!and!most!of!the!abandonment!of!religious!institutions!has!happened!in!the!past!65!years!or!less.!!!Figure'3.1:'Percentage'of'Religiously'affiliated'based'on'census'data'from'3'countries.'The'data'from'1970'is'an'estimate'from'the'World'Christian'Encyclopedia'(D.'Barrett,'2001).'!3.1.3 Current(Research(! Whatever!the!potential!historical!impacts!on!the!religious!difference!in!the!Czech!republic!and!Slovakia,!this!difference!can!be!exploited!to!assess!the!explanatory!power!of!different!theories!of!religiosity!and!religious!decline.!I!collected!data!in!both!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!and!used!these!samples!to!examine!evidence!for!the!previously!mentioned!theories!of!secularization.!I!used!individual!difference!measures!relevant!to!each!theory!to!evaluate!which!of!these!theories!would!best!explain!the!religious!differences!between!these!two!countries,!as!well!as!the!individual!variance!in!religious!beliefs!and!practices!within!them.!This!allows!me!to!explore!these!theories!in!two!ways.!First,!I!can!look!at!which!sets!of!2550751001960 1980 2000YearPercent ChristianChange in Christian Adherants Over Time Poland'Slovakia'Czech'1950' 1970'1991' 2001'2011'! 57!predictors!best!explain!the!secularization!of!the!Czech!Republic;!second,!I!can!address!questions!about!which!sets!of!variables!explain!the!most!variance!in!religious!belief!overall.!The!analysis!is!split!into!five!sections,!each!addressing!a!different!theory:!Analysis+1+In!the!first!analysis!section,!I!assessed!the!role!of!the!cognitive!biases!explored!in!the!previous!chapter!in!predicting!different!types!of!beliefs.!I!assess!both!the!country!level!difference!in!these!cognitive!biases!and!the!amount!of!over!all!variance!in!belief!these!biases!explain.!I!expected!these!biases!to!be!more!predictive!of!paranormal!belief!then!religious!belief,!and!more!predictive!of!religious!belief!then!religious!practice.!People!participate!in!religion!and!hold!religious!beliefs!for!other!reasons!then!how!intuitive!they!find!these!beliefs.!This!should!lessen!the!strength!of!intuition!as!a!predictor.!Any!country!level!difference!would!suggest!that!the!cognitive!biases!are!learned!via!exposure!to!culture!and!environment!rather!then!based!in!based!in!our!core!cognitive!functions.!Since!these!biases!are!considered!based!in!our!core!cognitive!functions!(Barrett,!2004;!Boyer!2008;!Kelemen,!2004),!a!country!level!difference!was!not!expected.!In!this!analysis,!I!replicated!the!path!model!from!the!previous!chapter!to!show!that!the!same!set!of!relationships!apply!to!this!new!sample.!Second,!I!assessed!how!much!variance!in!belief!in!God!and!paranormal!belief!is!accounted!for!by!these!cognitive!biases.!This!allowed!me!the!compare!the!relative!predictive!power!of!cognitive!biases!on!each!type!of!belief.!Finally,!I!looked!at!how!these!variables!predict!the!practice!of!religion.!! ! 58!Analysis+2+In!the!second!analysis!section,!I!assessed!the!impact!of!government!institutions,!such!as!social!safety!nets!like!healthcare!and!welfare,!and!perceptions!of!these!institutions,!on!religious!belief.!If!strong!secular!institutions!can!account!for!a!decline!in!existential!insecurity,!and!therefore!the!religious!difference!in!these!two!countries,!then!there!should!be!a!large!country!level!difference!in!either!institutions!or!the!perception!of!institutions.!Since!the!secular!institutions!in!these!two!countries!are!quite!similar,!it!is!unlikely!that!this!will!play!much!of!a!role.!Still,!it!is!how!strong!people!think!these!institutions!are,!and!how!much!they!worry!about!them!failing,!that!should!be!doing!most!of!the!work.!The!perception!questions!included!in!the!study!were!meant!to!capture!this.!In!addition!to!looking!at!the!country!level!difference,!I!assessed!how!much!variance!these!variables!predict!in!belief!in!God,!paranormal!belief!and!religious!practice.! Analysis+3+The!third!analysis!section!looks!at!the!role!of!credibility!enhancing!displays!in!supernatural!belief!and!religious!practice.!The!CREDs!scale!looks!at!childhood!exposure!to!credible!displays!of!religious!belief.!As!with!the!previous!sections,!I!assessed!the!country!level!difference!in!this!scale!as!well!as!how!much!variance!it!can!explain!in!belief!and!practice.!Based!on!the!historical!summary!above,!I!expected!CREDs!to!play!an!important!role!in!predicting!current!religious!beliefs.!To!assess!if!it!is!CREDs!specifically,!rather!than!just!being!raised!religiously,!that!account!for!this!difference,!I!included!an!additional!analysis!that!looked!at!only!those!who!were!raised!religiously!and!used!CREDs!to!predict!who!would!still!be!religious!as!an!adult. ! 59!Analysis+4+Finally,!in!analysis!four,!I!looked!at!all!these!variables!in!a!single!model!to!see!if!all!theories!remain!relevant!when!tested!together.!These!are!not!mutually!incompatible!theories,!so!I!expect!their!effects!to!be!additive!in!nature.!Analyzing!them!in!a!single!regression!allows!me!to!test!this!directly.!!3.2 Methods(Data!from!both!samples!was!collected!as!self[report!questionnaires.!This!data!was!collected!on!behalf!of!the!researchers!by!the!Czech!branch!of!IPSOS!market!research!firm.!The!questionnaires!were!translated!into!Czech!and!Slovakian!by!a!bilingual!researcher!familiar!with!the!theories!and!scales!aided!by!a!professional!translator,!and!then!back!translated!into!English.!Any!inconsistencies!in!the!back!translation!were!corrected.!Additional!country!and!district!level!data!was!gathered!from!census!and!other!government!agencies.!Measures!were!presented!in!a!randomly!generated!order.!All!belief!and!religion!questions!came!at!the!end!of!the!survey!after!all!other!measures!were!completed.!Demographic!variables!were!collected!by!IPSOS!separately.!!I!will!briefly!describe!the!belief!measure!here,!since!they!are!used!as!dependent!variables!in!all!of!the!analysis!sections!below.!The!predictor!variables!used!in!each!analysis!section!will!be!described!at!the!beginning!of!that!section.!!3.2.1 Belief(and(Practice(!Belief+in+God:!Belief!in!God!was!measured!with!the!same!three[question!scale!used!in!the!previous!chapter!(α =!0.71).!! 60!Religious+Participation:!This!included!rating!of!church!attendance,!prayer,!and!religiosity!(α =!0.92).!Paranormal+belief:!Paranormal!belief!was!measured!using!the!revised!paranormal!belief!scale!(Tobacyk,!2004).!The!religiosity!subscale!was!removed!because!it!overlapped!with!the!other!belief!measures.!The!mystical!animals!subscale!was!also!removed!due!to!its!cultural!specificity!(α =!0.94).!Life’s+Purpose:!Life’s!purpose!was!measured!using!the!same!three[question!scale!used!in!the!previous!chapter!(α =!0.69).!Affiliation:!In!the!previous!chapter,!affiliation!data!was!collected!based!on!church!membership!reported!by!churches.!In!the!current!sample,!the!affiliation!by!area!measure!came!from!the!Czech!and!Slovakia!censuses!and!based!on!self[report!church!membership.!!3.2.2 Participants(! Two!representative!samples!were!collected!by!IPSOS!from!their!paid!subject!pool,!one!in!the!Czech!Republic!(N!=!1010)!and!one!in!Slovakia!(N!=!1012).!Both!the!Czech!and!Slovakia!sample!consist!of!50%!females!and!have!a!mean!age!of!40.6!years!(sd!=!13.23)!and!41.3!years!(sd!=!13.22)!respectively.!!3.2.3 Religious(Profiles(of(the(Two(Countries(! As!expected,!the!Slovakian!sample!rates!far!higher!in!religious!belief!than!the!Czech!sample!(Czech:!M!=!2.89,!SD!=!1.48;!Slovakia:!M!=!4.12,!SD!=!1.58;!Welch!t(1917.60)!=![19.02+p!<!0.001,!d!=![0.85).!Both!samples!hold!similar!levels!of!paranormal!beliefs!(Czech:!M!=!3.32,!SD!=!1.16;!Slovakia:!M!=!3.24,!SD!=!1.13;!Welch!! 61!t(2001.06)!=!1.58!p!=!0.11,!d!=!0.07)!and!life’s!purpose!(Czech:!M!=!4.30,!SD!=!0.95;!Slovakia:!M!=!4.36,!SD!=!0.93;!Welch!t(1999.09)!=![1.61!p!=!.11,!d!=![0.07).!Though!only!17%!of!the!Czech!sample!said!they!were!religious,!40%!claimed!to!believe!in!‘a!spiritual!life!force’.!A!further!15%!believed!God!to!be!‘within!them’.!Only!8%!believed!explicitly!in!a!personal!God!(see!Fig!1).!This!suggests!that,!though!the!Czech!Republic!is!a!largely!non[religious!country,!the!Czech!people!still!hold!a!substantial!number!of!supernatural!beliefs.!They!are!‘atheistic’!only!in!the!sense!that!they!tend!to!not!believe!in!a!personal!god,!but!not!in!the!sense!that!they!believe!in!nothing!at!all.!!!Figure'3.2:'Percentage'of'participants'from'each'country'for'each'type'of'belief,'based'on'forced'choice'answers.'Percentages'are'in'parenthesis.''!(21.8)(10.2)(15.1)(8.6) (7.7)(32.2)(15.2)(19.1)(40.3)(29.9)01020304050Nothing Don't Know Personal God God is Within Spiritual LifeforcePercent of SampleCzech SlovakiaTypes of Belief! 62!3.3 Analysis(1:(Cognitive(Biases(as(a(Basis(for(Belief(! The!previous!chapter!explored!the!relationship!between!cognitive!biases!and!belief!with!a!path!model!(also!see!Willard!&!Norenzayan,!2013).!I!replicated!that!model!here.!I!focused!on!the!final!model,!which!included!a!measure!of!affiliation!in!the!participants’!county!as!a!predictor.!In!addition,!I!ran!a!second!model!using!country!as!a!proxy!for!affiliation!to!test!for!country!level!differences!in!this!effect.!!The!path!model!tests!how!these!cognitive!biases!are!related!to!supernatural!belief,!but!does!not!answer!questions!about!how!much!of!that!belief!is!explained!by!these!variables.!To!test!this,!I!ran!a!set!of!three!regression!models,!one!for!belief!in!God,!one!for!paranormal!belief,!and!the!last!for!religious!practice.!The!base!model!contained!only!relevant!demographic!variables!(country,!age,!gender,!marital!status,!number!of!children,!income!bracket,!level!of!education,!and!size!of!town).!This!model!assessed!how!much!variance!is!explained!by!these!demographics!alone.!Since!this!first!model!contains!variables!such!as!urbanization!and!education,!it!should!explain!a!substantial!portion!of!the!variation!in!supernatural!belief!if!the!secularization!theory!is!correct.!The!marketplace!theory!suggests!that!this!may!be!true!of!traditional!religious!beliefs,!but!not!of!supernatural!beliefs!overall.!With!these!demographic!shifts!comes!a!greater!degree!of!religious!freedom,!and!people!abandon!traditional!beliefs!when!other!beliefs!become!available!to!them.!!Model!1!includes!a!measure!of!analytic!thinking.!Previous!work!has!shown!that!higher!levels!of!analytic!thinking!leads!to!a!decline!in!religious!belief!(Gervais!&!Norenzayan,!2012;!Pennycook!et!al.,!2012;!Shenhav!et!al.,!2012).!I!looked!at!the!effects!of!analytic!thinking,!both!alone!and!as!a!part!of!model!2.!In!model!2,!I!added!! 63!dualism,!anthropomorphism,!teleology,!and!mentalizing.!Comparing!the!adjusted!R2!values!of!these!three!models!allowed!me!to!estimate!how!much,!if!any,!additional!variance!analytic!thinking!and!the!cognitive!biases!explained!over!the!base!model.!Analytic!thinking!remained!in!this!third!model!to!see!if!lower!levels!of!analytic!thinking!skills!can!account!for!the!effects!of!these!cognitive!biases.!I!looked!at!these!models!in!terms!of!three!separate!dependent!variables:!belief!in!God,!paranormal!belief,!and!religious!practice.!If!cognitive!biases!predict!supernatural!belief!generally,!rather!than!religious!belief!specifically,!then!these!cognitive!biases!should!have!more!explanatory!power!in!predicting!paranormal!belief!than!belief!in!God.!Belief!in!God!is!often!a!specific!institutionally!sanctioned!belief.!Many!people!may!believe!in!God!because!of!how!they!were!raised!or!the!religiousness!of!their!surrounding!culture!rather!than!an!intuitive!appeal!of!the!concept!itself.!In!both!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia,!cultural!and!historic!circumstance!may!strongly!determine!this!belief!regardless!of!a!participant’s!intuitions!towards!the!supernatural.!Paranormal!beliefs!are!also!determined!by!culture,!but!have!less!institutional!control.!Even!if!someone!has!the!intuitive!sense!that!there!is!an!agent[like!regulation!of!the!world,!they!are!unlikely!to!come!up!with!a!system!like!astrology!without!cumulative!culture.!Still,!the!adoption!of!these!beliefs!is!much!more!flexible.!In!either!a!highly!religious!or!a!highly!non[religious!society,!religious!belief!may!come!with!far!greater!social!consequences.!This!freedom!of!choice!in!paranormal!belief!should!allow!an!individual’s!intuitions!to!have!a!larger!impact!on!belief.!Cognitive!biases!should!have!little!or!no!impact!on!! 64!the!practice!of!religion,!and!any!relationship!that!does!exist!should!disappear!when!belief!in!God!is!controlled!for.!!3.3.1 Materials(!Anthropomorphism:+I!measured!anthropomorphism!with!the!Individual!Differences!in!Anthropomorphism!Quotient!(IDAQ)!(Waytz,!Cacioppo,!&!Epley,!2010a)(α!=!0.87).!Dualism.!I!used!Stanovich’s!(1989)!Dualism!Scale!to!measure!dualism!(α!=!0.77).!Teleology.!I!used!a!series!of!statements!created!by!Kelemen!and!Rosset!(2009)!to!test!teleology!(α=0.92).!Mentalizing.!I!used!the!Empathy!Quotient!to!measure!mentalizing!(Baron[Cohen!&!Wheelwright,!2004)(!α=0.87).!!3.3.2 Results(3.3.2.1 Path)Model)! The!model!was!fit!with!the!Lavaan!package!in!R!(Rosseel,!2012)!using!a!full!information!maximum!likelihood!(FIML)!!method!to!deal!with!a!small!amount!of!missing!data.!The!model!was!replicated!across!both!countries!(Yuan[Bentler!Χ2(9,!N!=!1916)!=!97.38,+p+<!0.001;!CFI!=!0.95;!RMSEA!=!0.07;!Fig.!3.2),!but!the!fit!was!only!modest.!After!looking!for!additional!unspecified!variance,!I!found!an!additional!correlation!between!the!error!values!of!mentalizing!and!purpose!(λ+=!0.16,!z=!6.86,!p+<!0.001).!Including!this!puts!the!fit!at!a!much!more!acceptable!level!(Yuan[Bentler!Χ2(8,!N!=!1916)!=!58.48,+p!<!0.001;!CFI!=!0.97;!RMSEA!=!0.05).!This!addition!does!not!change!the!hypothesis!or!conclusion!of!previous!work!in!any!substantial!way.!The!! 65!final!model!presented!in!the!previous!chapter!had!a!non[significant!Χ2,!suggesting!an!excellent!fit.!Though!I!did!not!replicate!this!level!of!fit!here,!a!high!level!of!fit!is!indicated!by!all!other!fit!indices.!The!Χ2!test!of!fit!is!less!likely!to!fit!with!increases!in!samples!size!(the!sample!size!is!almost!doubled!here),!making!it!a!highly!conservative!test!of!fit!and!the!model!presented!here!is!a!good!fit!by!both!the!RMSEA!and!the!CFI.!Importantly,!I!replicated!the!finding!that!living!in!an!area!with!high!religious!affiliation!increases!religiosity!but!decreases!anthropomorphism.!This!effect!can!also!be!found!by!replacing!the!affiliation!measure!with!a!dummy!code!representing!“Country”!(Czech!=!0;!Slovakia!=!1).!This!is!unsurprising!given!that!most!of!the!variance!seen!in!the!adherents!measure!was!found!between,!rather!than!within,!the!two!countries!(see!Fig.!3.4).!People!living!in!Slovakia!are!more!likely!to!believe!in!God!(λ+=!0.33,!z+=!16.63,!p<0.001)!and!less!likely!to!anthropomorphize!(λ+=![0.12,!z+=![5.50,!p<0.001)!when!compared!to!people!in!the!Czech!Republic.!Average!anthropomorphism!was!higher!in!the!Czech!Republic!(mean!=!2.87,!SD!=!1.15)!than!Slovakia!(mean!=!2.60,!SD!=!1.17;!Welch!t(1978.991)!=!5.20,!p+<!0.001,!d+=!0.23).!There!is!no!significant!difference!between!countries!in!any!other!cognitive!bias.!!!! 66!!Figure'3.3:'The'path'model'across'both'countries.'Yuan+Bentler'Χ2(9,'N'='1916)'='97.38,"p"<'0.001;'CFI'='0.95;'RMSEA'='0.07.'This'is'a'modest'fit.'When'an'additional'relationship'is'included'between'mentalizing'a'purpose'(λ"='.16,'z='6.86,'p"<0'.001),'improves'the'fit'(Yuan+Bentler'Χ2(8,'N'='1916)'='58.48,"p'<'0.001;'CFI'='0.97;'RMSEA'='0.05).'!!Figure'3.4:'The'percentage'of'people'who'are'religiously'affiliated'in'the'local'district'of'each'participant.''3.3.2.2 Regression)Analysis)! In!addition!to!country,!age!(in!decades),!and!gender,!shown!in!each!table,!the!base!model!included!marital!status,!number!of!children,!income,!education!and!size!of!place!(population!density).!Marital!status,!income!bracket,!education!level,!and!CzechSlovakia0 25 50 75 100PercentCountryPercent Religiously Affiliated by Area! 67!population!density!were!all!collected!as!categorical!variables!(e.g.!income!between!€20,000![!€39,999!per!year)!and!included!as!dummy!codes.!Since!this!required!each!category!to!be!its!own!variable,!there!were!a!total!of!23!variables!in!the!base!model.!The!regional!rates!of!affiliation!were!excluded!because!the!high!covariance!with!country!produced!multicolinearity!effects.!The!demographic!only!base!model!accounts!for!14%!of!the!variance!in!belief!in!God!and!17%!of!the!variance!in!religious!practice,!but!only!4%!of!the!variance!in!paranormal!belief!(see!Table!3.1).!!Analytic!thinking!was!added!in!model!1.!The!findings!show!that!as!people!get!better!at!analytic!thinking!they!are!less!likely!to!adopt!paranormal!beliefs!(β!=![0.15),!and!less!likely!to!engage!in!religious!practices!(β!=![0.08),!but!there!was!no!effect!for!belief!in!God!(β!=![0.01).!There!was!also!a!small!difference!in!amount!of!variance!explained!by!model!1!over!the!base!model!for!paranormal!belief!only!(ΔR2!=!0.02,!F(5,!1815)!=!32.53,!p!<!0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.02).!When!the!cognitive!bias!variables!were!added!in!model!2,!I!found!a!significant!difference!between!the!base!model!and!model!2!in!belief!in!God!(ΔR2!=!0.08,!F(5,!1811)!=!37.97,!p!<!0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.09),!paranormal!belief!(ΔR2!=!0.21,!F(5,!1811)!=!105.38,!p!<!0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.22)!and!religious!practice!(ΔR2!=!0.03,!F(5,!1811)!=!17.34!p!<!0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.05).!The!only!cognitive!predictor!that!predicted!religious!practice!was!dualism!(β!=!0.17),!but!this!effect!disappears!if!belief!in!God!is!controlled!for!(β!=!0.002,!95%!CI:![0.03!to!0.04).!!!!! 68!Table'3.1:'Cognitive'Biases'Predicting'Belief'and'Practice.'The'base'model'contains'only'demographic'variables;'model'1'contains'both'demographic'variables'and'analytic'thinking;'model'2'contains'all'variables'in'model'1,'plus'the'cognitive'bias'variables.''!Since!there!is!a!substantial!difference!in!belief!in!God!between!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia,!I!ran!the!base!model!and!model!2!predicting!belief!in!God!for!each!country!separately!(Table!3.2).!There!are!a!few!differences!in!how!these!B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upperIntercept 10.405(016)* 10.71 10.08 10.405(0.16)* 10.72 510.08 10.425(0.17)* 10.76 10.09Slovakia 50.585(0.05)*** 50.49 50.68 50.585(0.05)*** 50.49 50.68 50.565(0.05)*** 50.47 50.65Age 10.035(0.02) 10.07 50.02 10.035(0.02) 10.07 50.02 10.015(0.02) 10.05 50.03Female 50.175(0.05)*** 50.07 50.27 50.175(0.05)*** 50.07 50.27 50.115(0.05)* 50.02 50.20Analytic5 10.015(0.02) 10.06 50.04 50.035(0.02) 10.02 50.08Mentalizing 50.095(0.02)*** 50.05 50.14Anthro 50.055(0.02)* 50.01 50.09Dualism 50.255(0.02)*** 50.20 50.29Teleology 50.025(0.02) 10.03 50.06Adj.5R25=0.14,5 Adj.5R25=0.14,5 Adj.5R25=50.22,5F(23,51816)5=513.70,5p5<505.001 F(24,51815)5=512.23,5p5<505.001 F(28,51811)5=519.89,#p5<50.001Intercept 50.185(0.19) 10.18 50.56 50.245(0.17) 10.10 50.57 10.045(0.15) 10.29 50.34Slovakia 10.025(0.05) 10.12 50.08 10.045(0.05) 10.14 50.06 10.025(0.05) 10.11 10.07Age 10.045(0.02) 10.08 50.01 10.065(0.02) 10.11 550.01 50.025(0.02) 10.06 50.02Female 50.235(0.05)*** 50.13 50.33 50.195(0.05)*** 50.08 50.29 50.115(0.05)** 50.02 50.21Analytic5 10.155(0.03)*** 10.20 10.10 10.065(0.02)* 10.10 10.01Mentalizing 50.055(0.02)* 50.004 550.09Anthro 50.295(0.02)*** 50.25 550.33Dualism 50.295(0.02)*** 50.25 550.33Teleology 50.075(0.02)** 50.02 50.11Adj.5R25=50.04,5 Adj.5R25=50.06,5 Adj.5R25=50.26,5F(23,51816)5=54.74,5p5<50.001 F(24,51815)5=55.97,5p5<50.001 F(28,51811)5=523.82,5p5<50.001Intercept 10.305(0.16)† 10.61 50.01 10.305(0.16)† 10.61 50.01 10.345(0.16)* 10.65 10.04Slovakia 50.695(0.05)*** 50.60 50.79 50.685(0.05)*** 50.59 50.78 50.675(0.04)*** 50.58 50.77Age 10.015(0.02) 10.05 50.04 10.0035(0.02) 10.05 50.04 50.015(0.02) 10.04 50.05Female 50.115(0.05)* 50.01 50.20 50.095(0.05)† 10.001 50.19 50.065(0.05) 10.03 50.16Analytic5 10.085(0.02)*** 10.13 10.03 10.055(0.02)* 10.10 10.003Mentalizing 50.035(0.02) 10.01 50.07Anthro 50.045(0.02) 10.01 50.08Dualism 50.175(0.02)*** 50.12 50.21Teleology 50.015(0.02) 10.03 50.06Adj.5R25=50.17,5 Adj.5R25=50.18,5 Adj.5R25=50.21,5F(23,51816)5=518.03,5p5<50.001 F(24,51815)5=517.8,5p5<50.001 F(28,51811)5=518.47,5p5<50.001Note:5†p5<50.10,5*p5<50.05,5**p5<50.01,5***p5<50.001.5Additional5control5variables5included5in5models:5number5of5children,5marital5status,5education,5income,5and5size5of5place.Religious#PracticeBase5Model Model51 Model5295%5CI 95%5CI 95%5CIGodParanormal! 69!variables!predict!belief!between!these!two!countries.!Most!notably,!anthropomorphism!is!a!predictor!of!belief!in!God!in!the!Czech!sample.!This!is!not!the!case!in!the!Slovak!sample!and!is!not!the!case!in!previous!samples!from!North!America!(see!previous!chapter).!When!I!looked!only!at!the!participants!in!the!Czech!republic!who!claimed!to!be!religious!(n=176),!I!again!found!no!relationship!(β!=![0.004,!95%!CI:![0.13!to!0.12).!This!positive!relationship!seems!to!be!driven!by!the!remaining!non[religious!participants!(n=770;!β!=!0.14,!95%!CI:!0.09!to!0.20).!Since!these!cognitive!variables!seem!to!predict!belief!but!not!practice,!I!did!not!look!at!religious!practice!in!this!analysis.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 70!Table'3.2:'Cognitive'biases'predicting'belief'in'God'within'country.'The'base'model'contains'only'demographic'variables;'model'2'contains'both'demographic'variables'and'cognitive'bias'variables.'!3.3.3 Discussion(! Comparing!across!the!regression!models!gives!a!picture!of!the!relative!importance!of!different!groups!of!predictors!in!predicating!different!types!of!belief.!Belief!in!God!and!paranormal!belief!are!both!predicted!by!these!models,!but!both!the!pattern!and!relative!strength!of!prediction!differ.!First,!demographics!predict!far!more!of!the!variance!in!belief!in!God!and!religious!practice!then!paranormal!belief.!B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upperIntercept 10.605(0.23)** 11.06 10.15 10.765(0.22) 10.67 10.04Age 10.015(0.03) 10.08 50.05 50.025(0.03) 10.04 50.05Female 50.155(0.07)* 50.02 50.29 50.105(0.07) 10.02 50.17Analytic5 50.055(0.03) 10.04 50.06Mentalizing 50.065(0.03)* 50.05 50.14Anthro 50.135(0.03)*** 10.01 50.07Dualism 50.235(0.03)*** 50.21 50.30Teleology 10.045(0.03) 10.02 50.07Adj.5R25=50.05,5 Adj.5R25=50.14,5F(22,5887)5=53.07,5p5<50.001 F(27,5882)5=56.515p5<50.001Intercept 50.435(0.24) 10.04 50.90 50.515(0.23)* 50.065 50.95Age 10.045(0.03) 10.10 50.03 10.045(0.03) 10.10 50.03Female 50.175(0.07)* 50.03 50.31 50.095(0.07) 10.04 50.22Analytic5 50.025(0.04) 10.05 50.09Mentalizing 50.135(0.03)*** 50.07 50.19Anthro 10.025(0.03) 10.08 50.05Dualism 50.265(0.03)*** 50.20 50.32Teleology 50.085(0.03)* 50.01 50.14Adj.5R25=50.02,5 Adj.5R25=50.13,5F(22,5907)5=52.01,5p5=50.004 F(27,5902)5=55.96,5p5<50.001Note:5†p5<50.10,5*p5<50.05,5**p5<50.01,5***p5<50.001.5Additional5control5variables5included5in5models:5number5of5children,5marital5status,5education,5income,5and5size5of5place.Base5Model Model5295%5CI 95%5CICzech(Republic(.(GodSlovakia(.(God! 71!This!is!largely!due!to!the!country!level!difference!in!these!variables.!When!I!looked!at!belief!in!God!in!the!two!countries!separately,!the!variance!explained!by!the!demographics!alone!is!similar!to!that!of!paranormal!belief!(Czech!=!4%!and!Slovakia!=!2%).!Where!a!person!lives!is!the!strongest!demographic!predictor!of!belief!in!God!in!this!sample,!but!has!no!effect!on!paranormal!belief.!!When!the!demographic!model!(base!model)!is!compared!to!the!cognitive!model!(model!2),!the!prediction!that!cognitive!biases!explain!more!variance!in!paranormal!belief!(21!pp1)!than!belief!in!God!(8!pp)!is!supported.!Belief!in!God,!in!this!sample,!is!strongly!related!to!specific!Christian!religious!beliefs.!Cultural!pressure!in!a!country!with!high!number!of!believers!may!push!people!to!adopt!or!abandon!religious!beliefs!regardless!of!how!intuitive!they!find!them.!Paranormal!beliefs,!on!the!other!hand,!have!less!specific!cultural!pressure!on!them.!People!are!freer!to!adopt!or!not!adopt!these!beliefs!depending!on!their!intuitions.!When!I!looked!at!religious!practice,!dualism!remained!significant!but!the!additional!variance!explained!was!only!3!pp.!The!dualism!effect!disappears!if!I!add!belief!in!God!into!the!model.!This!implies!that!cognitive!biases!are!only!predicting!supernatural!belief!and!have!little!or!no!additional!affect!on!a!person’s!tendency!to!adopt!religious!practices.!!The!lack!of!country!level!differences!in!any!cognitive!bias!other!than!anthropomorphism!(discussed!below)!gives!some!support!to!the!theoretical!causal!direction!of!these!variables.!If!belief!in!God!was!the!root!of!these!cognitive!tendencies,!then!there!would!be!a!corresponding!country!level!difference!in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!pp!=!percentage!points.!!! 72!cognitive!biases.!Instead,!the!similar!level!of!these!cognitive!biases!in!both!countries!suggests!that!these!variables!are!largely!unaffected!by!changes!in!religious!beliefs.!This!cannot!rule!out!the!possibility!that!there!is!a!third!variable!causing!both!these!cognitive!biases!and!religious!belief.!!The!one!cognitive!variable!that!does!differ!between!countries!is!anthropomorphism,!but!it!is!higher!in!the!less!religious!country.!The!path!analysis!replication!confirms!the!finding!that!anthropomorphism!is!not!related!to!belief!in!God,!thought!this!cannot!be!generalized!past!majority!Christian!countries!at!this!time.!This!suggests!that!being!religious!(or!at!least!Christian)!actually!reduces,!or!perhaps!suppresses,!the!tendency!to!anthropomorphize.!Similar!to!the!argument!made!for!religious!belief!above,!paranormal!belief!cannot!account!for!this!country!level!differences.!Though!paranormal!belief!could!cause!the!similarly!in!dualism!between!the!two!countries,!for!paranormal!belief!to!be!causing!the!difference!in!anthropomorphism,!paranormal!belief!would!have!to!be!substantially!higher!in!the!Czech!Republic!than!Slovakia,!and!this!is!not!the!case.!Overall,!this!analysis!makes!the!case!that!individual!differences!in!these!cognitive!biases!are!a!foundation!for!individual!differences!in!supernatural!belief.!!3.4 Analysis(2:(Institutional(Trust(and(the(Existential(Anxiety(Hypothesis(! Though!the!predictive!ability!of!cognitive!biases!and!the!maintenance!of!some!supernatural!beliefs!in!the!Czech!Republic!lend!support!to!the!marketplace!hypothesis,!these!factors!cannot!account!for!the!massive!decline!in!religiosity!in!the!past!65!years.!For!this,!I!turn!to!other!secularization!theories.!One!potential!! 73!explanation!for!this!decline!is!the!Czech!Republic’s!strong!secular!institutions.!As!secular!institutions!replace!many!of!the!roles!of!religious!institutions,!and!systems!like!welfare!and!healthcare!assuage!basic!fears,!the!importance!of!religion!in!people’s!lives!declines!(Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004).!!One!immediate!problem!with!this!hypothesis!in!these!countries!is!that!both!the!Czech!republic!and!Slovakia!have!very!similar!institutions!(Froese,!2004).!Relatedly,!both!countries!have!a!Gini!Coefficient!of!2.6,!making!them!a!tie!for!the!fourth!highest!level!of!income!equality!in!the!world!(after!Denmark,!Sweden!and!Norway).!The!similarity!in!institutions!between!these!two!countries!suggests!that!the!strength!of!institutions!is!unlikely!to!explain!the!religious!difference.!Their!high!global!ranking!in!terms!of!the!income!equality!and!strength!of!their!secular!institutions!suggests!that!both!countries!should!be!equally!non[religious.!!Focusing!on!the!reduction!in!existential!anxieties!that!comes!with!strong!secular!institutions!gives!a!slightly!different!explanation.!If!it!is!specifically!the!reduced!anxiety!associated!with!strong!institutions!that!causes!the!decline!in!religiosity,!then!this!decline!will!be!based!on!individuals’!perception!of!the!strength!of!their!institutions!and!how!much!they!worry!about!them!failing!(Norris!&!Inglehart,!2004).!Even!in!a!place!with!high!levels!of!institutional!support,!peoples!may!differ!in!how!much!they!believe!these!institutions!really!look!out!for!them.!A!person!who!thinks!that!the!welfare!and!healthcare!systems!will!not!support!them!when!they!are!in!need!may!still!use!religion!to!decrease!the!existential!anxiety!these!beliefs!produce,!even!if!these!beliefs!are!entirely!unfounded.!!! 74!In!this!section,!I!looked!at!the!effects!of!both!actual!institutions!and!the!perception!of!institutions!on!religious!belief!in!these!two!samples.!First,!I!looked!at!county!level!difference!in!perceptions!of!institutional!support.!There!must!be!sizable!county!level!differences!feelings!of!insecurity!for!these!variable!to!explain!the!county!level!difference!in!religiosity.!As!with!the!cognitive!biases!above,!I!compare!a!model!that!includes!these!institution!and!perception!of!institution!to!a!base!model!of!demographic!variables!to!see!how!much!additional!variance!these!variables!explain.!Though!there!are!no!specific!predictions!of!the!existential!anxiety!on!non[religious!supernatural!beliefs,!I!analyzed!the!effects!on!paranormal!beliefs!as!well!as!belief!in!God!and!religious!practice.!If!there!is!an!effect!here,!it!will!suggest!that!the!existential!anxiety!hypothesis!affects!the!prevalence!of!supernatural!belief!more!generally,!not!just!religious!belief.!!3.4.1 Materials(! I!measured!people!perceptions!of!insecurity!in!the!following!categories.!Each!category!was!measured!using!3!questions!(see!Appendix!A).!Financial+insecurity+assesses!participant’s!fears!of!not!having!enough!money!or!becoming!destitute!(α=0.84).!Physical+insecurity+assesses!feelings!of!personal!safety!and!fear!of!crime!(α=0.76).!Social+insecurity+assesses!fears!about!social!services,!such!as!welfare!and!healthcare!failing!(α=0.76).!Inequality!assesses!perceptions!and!feelings!about!the!gap!between!the!rich!and!poor!(α=0.79).!Trust!assesses!participant’s!trust!in!other!people!in!their!society!(α=0.64).!! 75!Additional!data!on!institutions!was!collected!for!each!participant’s!district!from!census!and!other!government!data.!Levels!of!unemployment,!as!well!as!crimes,!number!of!doctors!and!number!of!social!facilities!per!1000!people!were!collected!for!each!participant’s!local!district.!These!variables!give!an!objective!assessment!of!institutional!support!at!a!local!level.!!3.4.2 Results(! Though!there!are!some!significant!country!level!differences!in!the!perception!of!insecurity!variables,!all!the!effects!are!negligible!(ds<0.20,!see!Table!3.3).!Due!to!the!high!level!of!similarity!between!Czech!and!Slovakia,!these!variables!cannot!explain!the!country!level!difference,!but!they!may!still!explain!individual!level!differences!across!the!two!countries.!The!difference!in!actual!institutions!is!greater,!especially!unemployment!with!a!d=1.04,!but!the!inclusion!of!these!variables!into!the!regression!models!does!not!reduce!the!country!level!difference!in!religiosity!or!religious!practice!(see!Table!3.4).!These!institutional!differences!should!be!compared!with!some!caution,!as!slight!differences!in!how!these!variables!are!measured!in!each!country!may!slightly!bias!these!results!(i.e.!how!doctors!or!social!facilities!are!counted).!!!!!!!! 76!Table'3.3:'Means'and'effect'sizes'of'mean'differences'between'countries'for'all'insecurity'variables.'!I!looked!at!how!the!perception!of!insecurity!affected!each!of!the!three!dependent!variables!(religious!participation,!belief!in!God!and!paranormal!belief),!controlling!for!actual!district!level!institutions!(Table!3.4).!Both!perceptions!of!physical!insecurity!and!insecurity!of!social!services!were!significantly!and!positively!related!to!religious!participation.!Still,!the!amount!of!overall!variance!these!variables!account!for!compared!to!the!base!model!is!minimal!(ΔR2!=!0.03,!F(5,!1874)!=!14.73,!p!<!0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.04).!If!I!look!at!the!effects!of!these!variables!of!belief!in!God,!only!trust!is!significant!(β!=!0.06,!95%!CI:!0.02!to!0.11),!and!the!increase!in!variance!explained!is!extremely!small!(ΔR2!=!0.006,!F(5,!1874)!=!2.8,!p!=!0.02,!partial!η2!=!0.007).!The!effects!of!perceived!security!on!paranormal!belief!are!more!apparent.!Despite!this,!the!additional!variance!explained!by!these!variables!is!once!again!small!(ΔR2!=!0.03,!F(5,!1874)!=!10.67,!p!<0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.03).!Among!the!institutional!variables,!unemployment!was!a!significant!predictor!of!religious!participation.!Since!this!variable!is!a!percentage,!this!means!that!for!one!standard!deviation!change!in!religious!participation,!the!unemployment!rate!increases!by!Czech&Mean&(sd) Slovakia&Mean&(sd) Cohen's&d lower upperFinancial&Insecurity 4.59&(1.47) 4.55&(1.51) 0.02 E0.07 0.11Physical&Insecurity 3.65&(1.39) 3.53&(1.35) 0.09 0.004 0.18Social&&Insecurity 2.35&(1.23) 2.45&(1.26) E0.08 E0.16 0.01Inequality 5.31&(1.08) 5.23&(1.08) 0.05 E0.04 0.14Trust 3.73&(0.93) 3.91&(0.87) E0.19 E0.28 E0.11Unemployment 8.40&(2.94) 13.05&(0.58) E1.04 E1.13 E0.95Doctors 3.21&(1.39) 3.46&(2.47) E0.12 E0.21 E0.04Crime 2.36&(1.20) 1.61&(0.85) 0.71 0.67 0.81Social&Facilities 0.31&(0.08) 0.24&(0.09) 0.76 0.67 0.86d&95%&CI! 77!0.01%.!Crime!rate!is!significant!for!paranormal!belief.!This!variable!can!be!interpreted!as!an!increase!of!0.06!crimes!per!1000!people!for!a!one!standard!deviation!increase!in!paranormal!belief.!Both!of!these!effects!are!small.!!When!I!look!at!these!effects!in!each!country!separately,!some!country!specific!effects!do!emerge!(Table!3.4).!Most!notably,!the!effects!of!the!perception!variables!predicting!paranormal!belief!are!only!found!in!Slovakia,!not!the!Czech!republic.!Similarly,!the!effect!of!crime!rate!predicting!paranormal!beliefs!also!appears!to!be!specific!to!Slovakia.!It!is!unclear!what!would!cause!this!difference.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 78!!Table'3.4:'Perceptions'of'Insecurity'and'institutions'predicting'practice'and'belief.'Each'model'represents'a'different'DV'(religious'practice,'belief'in'God,'and'paranormal'belief).'Table'is'split'into'three'sections'by'country'(both'countries,'Czech'Republic,'Slovakia).''!B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upperIntercept 10.396(0.20)† 10.78 60.002 10.376(0.21)† 10.78 60.04 10.086(0.22) 10.50 60.34Slovakia 60.646(0.06)*** 60.51 60.75 60.536(0.06)*** 60.42 60.66 10.076(0.06) 10.19 60.06Age 10.016(0.02) 10.06 60.03 10.036(0.02) 10.08 60.01 10.066(0.03)* 10.11 10.01Female 60.116(0.05)* 60.02 60.21 60.176(0.05)*** 60.07 60.26 60.206(0.05)*** 60.10 60.30Financial6Insec. 10.006(0.02) 10.05 60.05 60.016(0.03) 10.04 60.06 60.096(0.03)** 60.03 60.14Physical6Insec. 60.056(0.02)* 60.016 60.10 60.026(0.02) 10.03 60.07 60.086(0.03)** 60.03 60.13Social6Insec. 60.146(0.02)*** 60.10 60.19 60.036(0.02) 10.016 60.08 60.076(0.02)** 60.02 60.12Inequality 10.036(0.03) 10.08 60.02 10.0046(0.02) 10.05 60.04 10.076(0.03)** 10.12 10.02Trust 60.046(0.02)† 10.001 60.09 60.066(0.02)** 60.02 60.11 60.056(0.02)* 60.001 60.10Unemployment 60.016(0.005)* 60.003 60.02 10.016(0.01) 10.004 60.02 60.016(0.005)† 10.00 60.02Doctors 10.026(0.02) 10.06 60.02 10.016(0.02) 10.05 60.03 60.036(0.03) 10.01 60.07Crime 60.026(0.03) 10.03 60.08 10.016(0.03) 10.07 60.04 60.066(0.03)* 60.003 60.12Social6Facilities. 10.146(0.25) 10.63 60.33 10.066(0.25) 10.55 60.44 10.056(0.26) 10.57 60.47Adj.6R26=60.20,6 Adj.6R26=60.14,6 Adj.6R26=60.07,6F(32,61807)6=615.90,6p6<606.001 F(32,61807)6=610.36,6p6<606.001 F(32,61807)6=65.51,6p6<606.001Intercept 10.586(0.25)* 11.08 10.09 10.616(0.30)* 11.18 10.03 60.046(0.32) 10.60 60.68Age 10.026(0.03) 10.08 60.04 10.026(0.03) 10.10 60.04 10.076(0.03)* 10.15 10.003Female 60.046(0.06) 10.07 60.16 60.176(0.07)* 60.03 60.30 60.196(0.08)* 60.04 60.34Financial6Insec. 60.016(0.03) 10.05 60.07 60.016(0.04) 10.06 60.08 60.076(0.04)† 10.01 60.15Physical6Insec. 60.036(0.03) 10.03 60.08 10.0046(0.03) 10.07 60.06 60.036(0.04) 10.04 60.10Social6Insec. 60.156(0.03)*** 60.10 60.21 60.086(0.03)* 60.01 60.14 60.076(0.04)† 10.00 60.14Inequality 10.036(0.03) 10.09 60.02 10.016(0.03) 10.06 60.08 10.046(0.04) 10.11 60.04Trust 60.056(0.03)† 10.002 60.10 60.086(0.03)* 60.02 60.14 60.076(0.03)† 10.00 60.13Unemployment 60.016(0.01) 10.01 60.03 60.016(0.01) 10.01 60.03 60.036(0.01)* 60.002 60.06Doctors 60.056(0.04) 10.03 60.13 60.046(0.05) 10.05 60.13 60.116(0.05)* 60.01 60.22Crime 60.006(0.04) 10.08 60.08 10.096(0.04)* 10.17 10.001 60.016(0.05) 10.09 60.10Social6Facilities. 10.026(0.35) 10.71 60.68 60.126(0.41) 10.68 60.92 10.606(0.45) 11.49 60.29Adj.6R26=0.08,6 Adj.6R26=0.06,6 Adj.6R26=0.07,6F(31,6878)6=63.47,6p6<606.001 F(31,6878)6=62.84,6p6<606.001 F(31,6878)6=63.12,6p6<606.001Intercept 60.536(0.33) 10.11 61.17 60.446(0.31) 10.176 61.06 10.516(0.31)† 11.11 60.09Age 60.0026(0.04) 10.07 60.07 10.046(0.03) 10.12 60.03 10.056(0.03) 10.12 60.02Female 60.176(0.07)* 60.02 60.31 60.156(0.07)* 60.01 60.30 60.186(0.07)* 60.04 60.32Financial6Insec. 10.016(0.04) 10.08 60.07 10.016(0.04) 10.08 60.07 60.076(0.04)* 60.001 60.15Physical6Insec. 60.086(0.04)* 60.02 60.16 60.056(0.04) 10.03 60.12 60.156(0.04)*** 10.01 60.12Social6Insec. 60.126(0.04)*** 60.05 60.19 10.026(0.03) 10.08 60.05 60.066(0.03)† 10.14 10.03Inequality 10.026(0.04) 10.09 60.06 10.016(0.04) 10.08 60.06 10.106(0.03)** 10.06 60.04Trust 60.046(0.03) 10.04 60.10 60.056(0.03) 10.03 60.11 60.036(0.03) 10.04 60.10Unemployment 60.016(0.02) 10.005 60.02 60.0036(0.01) 10.01 60.02 60.016(0.01) 10.0036 60.02Doctors 10.026(0.03) 10.08 60.03 10.026(0.03) 10.07 60.03 60.0046(0.03) 10.05 60.06Crime 60.0016(0.04) 10.08 60.09 60.026(0.04) 10.06 60.10 60.116(0.04)** 60.03 60.19Social6Facilities. 10.416(0.38) 11.17 60.34 10.286(0.36) 11.00 60.43 60.286(0.36) 10.43 60.98Adj.6R26=0.07,6 Adj.6R26=0.02,6 Adj.6R26=0.09,6F(31,6898)6=63.41,6p6<606.001 F(31,6898)6=61.58,6p6=606.02 F(31,6898)6=63.83,6p6<606.001Both'CountriesCzech'RepublicSlovakiaNote:6†p6<60.10,6*p6<60.05,6**p6<60.01,6***p6<60.001.6Additional6control6variables6included6in6models:6number6of6children,6marital6status,6education,6income,6and6size6of6place.Religious6Practice God95%6CI 95%6CI Paranormal95%6CI! 79!3.4.3 Discussion(! Perception!of!insecurity!impacts!the!strength!of!religious!practice!and!belief,!at!least!in!a!small!way.!People!who!feel!safe!in!their!environment!and!feel!like!their!secular!institutions!will!look!after!them!are!less!likely!to!participate!in!religion,!but!this!doesn’t!seem!to!affect!their!belief!in!God.!When!participants!feel!unsafe!they!do!seem!more!likely!to!hold!paranormal!beliefs,!but!all!of!these!effects!are!very!small.!Among!the!perception!variables,!only!the!effect!of!social!insecurity!on!religious!participation,!and!the!Slovakia[specific!effect!of!physical!insecurity!on!paranormal!belief,!were!greater!than!β!=0.10.!!There!are!several!things!that!may!have!led!to!such!small!effects!in!this!sample,!the!most!obvious!being!the!high!level!of!social!services!in!both!of!these!countries.!Both!countries!have!universal!health!care!and!relatively!low!crime!rates.!The!lack!of!variance!on!these!variables!reduces!the!ability!to!detect!effects!that!might!be!present!in!a!more!diverse!sample.!Examining!a!more!diverse!set!of!societies!may!lead!to!quite!different!conclusions.!Another!possibility!is!the!actual!effectiveness!of!religion!in!reducing!anxieties.!If!religion!is!effective!in!reducing!feelings!of!insecurity,!then!religious!participants!should!show!less!anxiety!then!would!be!expected!given!their!environment.!Again,!a!greater!diversity!of!cultures!would!be!needed!to!test!this.!Regardless!of!why!these!effects!are!small,!I!can!conclude!that!neither!perceptions!nor!the!realities!of!safety!and!security!can!account!for!the!religious!differences!between!these!two!countries.!!!! 80!3.5 Analysis(3:(Cultural(Transmission(! The!final!theory!I!will!evaluate,!cultural!transmission,!is!the!theory!most!likely!to!explain!the!country!level!difference!in!religiosity.!Though!an!individual’s!intuitive!sense!of!the!supernatural!or!the!functional!roles!religion!may!play!in!making!a!person!feel!safe!in!the!world!might!play!some!part!in!determining!levels!of!belief,!what!should!ultimately!determine!if!a!person!is!religious!or!not!is!how!well!they!learned!these!beliefs!and!practices!from!others!(Gervais!et!al.,!2011).!New!members!of!society!learn!what!to!believe!and!the!importance!of!belief!from!a!combination!of!their!parents!and!their!broader!social!network.!At!the!same!time,!only!some!small!set!of!all!cultural!practices!are!transmitted!with!high!fidelity!from!one!generation!to!the!next.!Part!of!what!will!determine!what!stays!or!what!goes!in!a!culture!is!how!well!new!individuals!in!a!society!learn!its!beliefs!and!practice.!In!terms!of!religiosity,!people!in!both!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!will!learn!what!to!believe,!and!how!important!it!is!to!believe!it,!from!those!around!them.!!I!looked!at!credibility!enhancing!displays!(CREDs)!as!a!mode!of!cultural!transmission!(see!Henrich,!2009).!According!to!this!theory,!part!of!what!determines!the!strength!by!which!religious!and!other!cultural!practices!and!beliefs!are!transmitted!is!sincere!behavioral!displays!of!that!practice/belief.!This!is!especially!important!for!beliefs!and!practices!that!cannot!be!verified!with!direct!experience.!For!example,!if!someone!says!that!smoking!will!make!you!feel!more!relaxed,!it!is!easy!to!verify!that!belief!by!testing!the!theory!yourself.!Smoke,!and!see!how!you!feel.!On!the!other!hand,!if!someone!tells!you!that!smoking!is!bad!for!your!health,!there!is!no!way!to!verify!this!with!direct!personal!experience!(at!least!not!immediately).!You!! 81!have!to!decide!the!truth!of!this!based!on!some!other!criteria.!One!way!to!do!this!is!based!on!the!actions!of!people!around!you.!If!everyone!you!know!stops!smoking,!you!should!be!more!inclined!to!adopt!the!belief!that!smoking!is!bad!for!your!health.!This!is!not!the!only!way!that!beliefs!are!transmitted,!but!it!may!be!an!important!one!for!religious!beliefs.!Religious!beliefs!are!the!unverifiable!kind.!Religious!sacrifice!and!rituals!can!function!as!a!way!of!signaling!the!truth!and!importance!of!a!belief,!and!they!can!therefore!increase!the!likelihood!that!observers!will!adopt!the!same!beliefs!and!behaviors.!!As!with!the!previous!two!sections,!I!looked!at!the!country!level!difference!and!individual!difference!across!the!whole!sample.!I!once!again!compared!how!much!variance!is!explained!by!CREDs!above!and!beyond!the!base!model.!Second,!I!looked!only!at!participants!who!were!raised!in!religious!households!and!used!CREDs!to!predict!who!would!remain!religious!as!an!adult!and!who!would!not.!This!analysis!looks!at!the!effects!of!religious!displays!above!and!beyond!just!being!raised!in!a!religious!household!on!the!fidelity!of!belief!transmission.!!3.5.1 Material(! To!measure!CREDs!I!used!the!CREDs!scale!(Lanman!&!Buhrmester,!n.d.).!This!scale!consists!of!five!questions!about!exposure!to!parents’!religious!displays!when!participants!were!children!(e.g.!“To!what!extent!did!your!parents!or!caregivers!engage!in!religious!volunteer!or!charity!work?”;!“Overall,!to!what!extent!did!your!parents!or!caregivers!make!personal!sacrifices!for!religion?”).!I!combined!these!with!! 82!ratings!of!childhood!church!attendance!for!an!overall!variable!of!exposure!to!credible!belief!displays!in!childhood!(α=0.92).!'3.5.2 Results(! Participant’s!perceptions!of!their!parents’!religiosity!were!highly!related!to!the!CREDs!variable!(r!=!0.83).!Because!of!this,!parental!religiosity!could!not!be!included!in!the!regressions.!There!was!also!a!large!country!level!difference!in!CREDs!(d=[0.97,!95%CI:![1.06!to![0.87)!and!a!strong!relationship!to!both!religious!practice!and!belief.!With!this!effect,!I!was!able!to!see!if!the!CREDs!variable!mediated!the!country!level!difference!in!religiosity.!I!found!a!partial!mediation!for!the!county!level!difference!in!both!religious!participation!and!belief!in!God!(Fig.!3.5).!!! 83!!Figure'3.5:'CREDs'mediation'of'religious'participation'and'belief'in'God.'Non+mediated'betas'are'in'parenthesis.'Sobel’s'test'of'mediation'for'participation:'z"='16.59,'p'<'0.001;'God:'z"='14.23,'p'<'0.001.''!Across!the!whole!sample,!CREDs!were!strong!predictors!of!current!religious!participation!and!current!belief!in!God!(Table!3.5).!The!addition!of!this!variable!accounts!for!a!substantial!amount!the!variance!explained!(religious!participation:!ΔR2!=!0.25,!F(1,!1816)!=!781.11!p!=<0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.30;!God:!ΔR2!=!0.15,!F(1,!1818)!=!392.39,!p!=<0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.18).!Though!CREDs!are!a!significant!predictor!of!paranormal!belief,!this!effect!is!small,!explaining!very!little!additional!variance!(Paranormal:!ΔR2!=!0.02,!F(1,!1824)!=!32.13,!p!=<0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.02).!!!!! 84!Table'3.5:'CREDs'predicting'practice'and'beliefs.'Each'model'represents'a'different'DV'(religious'practice,'belief'in'God,'and'paranormal'belief).'!Finally,!since!the!previous!analysis!cannot!separate!CREDs!from!being!raised!religiously,!I!used!a!multinomial!logistic!regression!to!look!at!the!impact!of!CREDs!on!the!tendency!to!remain!religious!among!those!who!were!raised!religiously!(N+=!921)!as!a!stricter!test!of!the!CREDs!hypothesis.!CREDs!significantly!predicted!the!tendency!to!remain!religious!as!an!adult!(Table!3.6).!Although!participants!who!are!currently!SBNR!do!have!higher!ratings!of!CREDs!then!the!non[religious!(SBNR:!M!=!2.80,!SD!=!1.52;!Non[religious:!M!=!2.04,!SD!=!1.29;!Welch!t(1091.83)!=!9.04,!p!<!0.001,!d!=!0.54),!this!effect!is!not!significantly!different!from!the!non[religious!when!demographics!are!controlled!for.!These!effects!remain!when!the!two!countries!are!analyzed!separately.!!"Table'3.6:'CREDS'predicting'the'probability'of'remaining'religious'or'becoming'SBNR'using'multinomial'logistic'regression.''B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upperIntercept 10.276(0.15)† 10.55 60.02 10.416(0.16)* 10.23 10.09 60.186(0.19) 10.18 60.55Slovakia 60.256(0.04)*** 60.16 60.34 60.236(0.05)*** 60.14 60.33 10.146(0.05)** 10.25 10.03Age 10.066(0.02)** 10.09 10.02 10.076(0.02)*** 10.11 10.03 10.066(0.02)* 10.10 10.01Female 60.126(0.04)** 60.05 60.20 60.186(0.04)*** 60.10 60.27 60.236(0.05)*** 60.13 60.33CREDs 60.326(0.01)*** 60.30 60.34 60.256(0.01)*** 60.22 60.27 60.086(0.01)*** 60.06 60.11Adj.6R26=60.42,6 Adj.6R26=0.29,6 Adj.6R26=0.06,6F(23,61816)6=659.52,6p6<606.001 F(23,61816)6=633.48,6p6<606.001 F(23,61816)6=66.06,6p6<606.001Note:6†p6<60.10,6*p6<60.05,6**p6<60.01,6***p6<60.001.6Additional6control6variables6included6in6models:6number6of6children,6marital6status,6education,6income,6and6size6of6place.Participantion God95%6CI 95%6CI Paranormal95%6CI! 85!!3.5.3 Discussion(! The!exposure!to!religious!rituals!and!parental!religious!commitment!as!a!child!accounts!for!more!variance!than!any!other!variable!in!our!model.!An!important!caveat!is!that!ratings!of!the!strength!of!parents’!religiosity!and!reports!of!their!credible!displays!of!religiosity!are!highly!correlated,!and!cannot!be!statistically!separated.!Never!the!less,!the!results!show!that!this!is!not!just!about!being!raised!in!religious!households.!Even!when!I!look!at!only!the!participants!who!were!raised!religiously,!those!who!recall!their!parents!making!more!credible!displays!of!religious!belief!are!more!likely!to!have!maintained!their!religiosity!as!adults.!The!strong!relationships!between!CREDs!and!ratings!of!parents’!religiosity!should!be!expected!if!CREDs!has!an!impact!on!how!sincere!or!true!observers!view!the!displayer’s!beliefs.!Making!sacrifices!for!ones!religion!should!convince!other!people!that!one!holds!strong!beliefs!about!that!religion.!!B(SE) Odds lower upperIntercept 40.199(0.54) 0.82 0.32 2.10Slovakia 90.839(0.28)** 2.30 1.33 3.95Age 90.079(0.10) 1.08 0.88 1.31Female 90.989(0.26)*** 2.68 1.59 4.54CREDs 90.459(0.09)*** 1.57 1.31 1.89Intercept 40.929(0.54) 0.40 0.14 1.15Slovakia 90.239(0.31) 1.26 0.68 2.33Age 90.219(0.11)† 1.24 0.99 1.55Female 90.759(0.30)* 2.11 1.17 3.83CREDs 90.139(0.11) 1.14 0.92 1.9095%9CIReligiousSBNRNote:9†p9<90.10,9*p9<90.05,9**p9<90.01,9***p9<90.001.9Additional9control9variables9included9in9models:9number9of9children,9marital9status,9education,9income,9and9size9of9place.! 86!The!concept!that!more!people!are!exposed!to!religious!commitment!as!a!child!the!more!religious!people!are!as!an!adult!may!not!be!surprising!to!many!readers.!Yet,!it!is!an!often!overlooked!relationship!in!the!cognitive!science!of!religion.!High!fidelity!transmission!of!religious!belief!from!one!generation!to!another!is!the!most!important!factor!in!maintaining!religious!belief!over!time.!This!analysis!suggest!that!anything!that!reduces!displays!of!religious!belief!in!one!generation!may!impact!the!religiosity!in!the!next!generation!to!a!much!greater!extent!then!institutional!change!or!cognitive!biases.!Further,!this!effect!is!not!specific!to!only!religious!practice,!but!also!to!religious!belief.!Being!exposed!to!religious!displays!increased!the!chances!of!both!believing!in!God!and!remaining!religious!throughout!life.!!Cultural!transmission!functions!as!a!mechanism!of!change,!but!in!this!case!it!is!not!the!distal!cause.!Something!like!existential!insecurity!could!function!as!this!explanation.!If!increases!in!feelings!of!security!have!a!small!impact!on!religious!participation!in!one!generation,!even!if!there!is!no!impact!on!levels!of!religious!belief,!this!decline!in!participation!may!substantially!decrease!the!participation!and!belief!of!the!next!generation.!At!the!same!time,!this!idea!of!cultural!transmission!as!a!mechanism!allows!for!a!much!larger!spectrum!of!potential!causes!above!and!beyond!the!secularization!theories!I!have!discussed!above.!Single!unique!events!in!history!can!set!off!this!type!of!change,!not!just!species[wide!psychological!effects!like!those!produced!by!changes!in!levels!of!education!and!existential!security.!!In!the!case!of!the!Czech!Republic,!a!long!history!of!skepticism!of!the!Catholic!Church!combined!with!the!communist!restriction!of!religious!practice!may!have!been!the!spark!that!precipitated!declining!religiosity.!The!history!of!skepticism!of!! 87!the!Catholic!Church!as!an!institution!made!the!Czech!people!much!more!accepting!of!the!ban!on!religious!activities!put!in!place!by!the!communists!than!the!people!in!Slovakia!or!in!other!surrounding!countries.!The!lack!of!religious!displays!this!ban!caused!may!have!led!to!subsequent!generations!of!Czechs!to!be!brought!up!in!an!environment!with!no!religious!CREDs,!which!in!turn!taught!them!that!religious!belief!was!unimportant.!With!this,!an!increasing!proportion!of!society!became!non[believers.!Slovakia,!on!the!other!hand,!saw!the!ban!on!religious!activities!as!an!affront!to!their!national!and!individual!identity.!In!this!case,!participation!in!religion!may!have!become!an!exaggerated!display,!associated!with!higher!consequences!and,!therefore,!higher!credibility.!!Even!if!this!turns!out!not!to!be!a!complete!explanation!of!the!religious!differences!between!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia,!it!illustrates!how!a!historical!event!(and!the!range!of!reactions!to!that!event)!can!significantly!impact!the!secularization!process!or!its!opposite.!Though!other!causal!factors!certainly!come!into!play,!when!the!fidelity!of!transmission!from!one!generation!to!another!(aided!significantly!by!CREDs)!declines,!this!may!accelerate!the!secularization!process!or!lead!to!an!increase!in!conversion!from!one!form!of!religious!belief!to!another.!!3.6 Analysis(4:(Combined(Model(! All!of!these!variables!separately!predict!belief!and!religious!practice,!but!do!they!do!so!independently?!In!my!final!analysis,!I!combine!all!the!predictors!into!one!model!to!see!if!the!relevant!predictors!remain!the!same!and!how!much!variance!is!predicted.!!! 88!3.6.1 Results(! With!all!the!variables!in!the!model!(Table!3.7)!the!amount!of!variance!explained!above!the!base!mode!is!27!pp!for!religious!practice!(ΔR2!=!0.27,!F(11,!1805)!=!79.62,!p!=<0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.33),!20!pp!for!belief!in!God!(ΔR2!=!0.20,!F(1,!1805)!=!51.67,!p!=<0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.24),!and!23!pp!for!paranormal!belief!(ΔR2!=!0.23,!F(1,!1805)!=!51.46,!p!=<0.001,!partial!η2!=!0.24).!!Table'3.7:'All'variables'predicting'religious'practice'and'belief.'Each'model'represents'a'different'DV'(religious'practice,'belief'in'God,'and'paranormal'belief).'!3.6.2 Discussion((! There!is!little!change!in!the!relevant!predictors!when!all!the!variables!are!included!in!a!single!model.!This!suggests!that!each!of!these!theories!do!function!as!independent!predictors!of!religious!practice,!belief!in!God,!and!paranormal!belief.!Overall,!these!models!explain!44%!of!the!variance!in!religious!practice,!34%!of!the!B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upper B(SE) lower upperIntercept 10.305(0.13)* 10.56 10.04 10.405(0.14)** 10.68 10.12 10.0045(0.15) 10.30 50.29Slovakia 50.255(0.04)*** 50.17 50.34 50.255(0.05)*** 50.16 0.34 10.075(0.05) 10.17 50.02Age 10.065(0.02)** 10.10 10.02 10.065(0.02)** 10.10 10.01 10.025(0.02) 10.065 50.03Female 50.095(0.04)* 50.01 50.17 50.135(0.04)** 50.04 0.21 50.105(0.05)* 50.025 50.19CREDs 50.305(0.01)*** 50.28 50.32 50.235(0.01)*** 50.20 0.25 50.035(0.01)* 50.0045 50.06Financial5Insec. 10.0025(0.02) 10.04 50.04 50.005(0.02) 10.04 0.04 50.055(0.02)* 50.003 50.10Physical5Insec. 50.025(0.02) 10.02 50.06 10.015(0.02) 10.05 0.03 50.055(0.02)* 50.001 50.09Social5Insec. 50.075(0.02)** 50.03 50.11 10.025(0.02) 10.06 0.02 50.025(0.02) 10.035 50.06Inequality 10.035(0.02) 10.07 50.01 10.015(0.02) 10.05 0.03 10.075(0.02)** 10.12 10.03Trust 50.025(0.02) 10.02 50.06 50.035(0.02) 10.01 0.07 50.025(0.02) 10.02 0.07Analytic5 10.035(0.02) 10.05 50.01 50.045(0.02)† 10.003 0.08 10.055(0.02)† 10.09 50.00Mentalizing 50.035(0.02) 10.01 50.06 50.085(0.02)*** 50.04 0.12 50.055(0.02)* 50.01 50.10Anthro 10.015(0.02) 10.05 50.02 50.035(0.02) 10.01 0.07 50.275(0.02)*** 50.23 50.31Dualism 50.115(0.02)*** 50.07 50.15 50.205(0.02)*** 50.16 0.24 50.285(0.02)*** 50.24 50.32Teleology 10.0045(0.2) 10.04 50.03 50.015(0.02) 10.03 0.05 50.065(0.02)** 50.02 50.11Adj.5R25=50.44,5 Adj.5R25=50.34,5 Adj.5R25=50.27,5F(34,51805)5=543.64,5p5<0.001 F(34,51805)5=528.83,5p5<0.001 F(34,51805)5=520.82,5p5<0.001Note:5†p5<50.10,5*p5<50.05,5**p5<50.01,5***p5<50.001.5Additional5control5variables5included5in5models:5number5of5children,5marital5status,5education,5income,5and5size5of5place.Practice 95%5CI God 95%5CI Paranormal95%5CI! 89!variance!in!belief!in!God,!and!27%!of!the!variance!in!paranormal!belief.!!The!difference!in!belief!in!God!and!religious!practice!between!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!remains!significant!in!this!model,!suggesting!there!is!something!that!this!model!does!not!account!for.!This!may!be!something!indistinguishable!from!country,!such!as!the!influence!of!national!identity.!The!identity!of!Slovakia!as!a!Catholic!country!may!in!it!self!serve!as!a!credible!display!of!belief.!Alternatively,!there!may!be!some!other!predictors!of!religiosity!that!I!have!failed!to!account!for!in!this!study.!!3.7 General(Discussion(! All!of!the!theories!talked!about!in!this!chapter!appear!to!be!part!of!this!package!we!call!“religion”!in!these!two!countries.!Each!contributes!something!different!to!explaining!belief!and!practice!in!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia.!I!will!sum!them!each!in!turn:!Cognitive+biases:!The!theories!around!the!cognitive!basis!for!religious!belief!suggest!that!religion!is!natural!(Barrett,!2007;!Bloom,!2007;!Kelemen,!2004).!Based!on!the!research!presented!here,!this!idea!may!need!to!be!amended!slightly.!Supernatural!beliefs!do!seem!to!be!partially!based!in!the!extension!of!mental!state!reasoning!to!things!without!minds,!but!this!may!have!only!a!small!impact!on!whether!or!not!a!person!adopts!a!particular!set!of!religious!beliefs.!A!much!more!important!predictor!of!religiosity!seems!to!be!the!culture!in!which!a!person!lives.!These!cognitive!biases!do!predict!other!sorts!of!supernatural!beliefs!(those!that!are!less!attached!to!specific!religious!traditions).!This!supports!the!marketplace!theory,!in!the!sense!that!people!are!not!becoming!non[believers.!Some!proportion!of!society!maintains!some!type!of!! 90!supernatural!beliefs.!When!cultural!pressures!to!be!a!member!of!a!specific!religion!decline,!those!thus!prone!to!supernatural!belief!are!likely!to!leave!religion!with!the!rest!of!their!culture,!but!maintain!some!set!of!alternative!supernatural!beliefs.!!Existential+anxiety:+The!existential!anxiety!hypothesis!suggests!that!as!secular!institutions!replace!religious!ones!in!helping!us!to!deal!with!our!existential!anxieties,!religious!beliefs!start!to!decline.!I!found!only!slight!influence!of!this!in!my!sample,!but!this!is!likely!due!to!a!lack!of!variance!and!not!reflective!of!the!impact!of!this!theory!more!broadly.!Still,!even!if!this!theory!does!explain!broad!trends,!it!can!only!account!for!a!small!part!of!the!story!in!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia.!Specifically,!it!cannot!account!for!the!high!level!of!religiosity!in!Slovakia,!despite!the!high!levels!of!security.!What!broad!theories!like!this!do!not!reflect!is!the!inherent!social!nature!of!people.!In!the!quest!to!find!singular!theories!that!can!explain!these!complex!processes,!the!social!sciences!can!often!miss!the!important!role!of!culture!and!how!much!we,!as!humans,!learn!from!others.!!Cultural+transmission:+Humans!learn!much!of!how!to!behave!and!what!to!believe!from!the!broader!culture!in!which!they!live.!Religious!traditions!are!no!exception.!Of!all!the!variables!I!assessed,!CREDs—parents’!participations!in!religion!and!religious!attendance!as!a!child—were!the!strongest!predictors!of!current!religious!belief.!Additionally,!CREDs!were!the!only!variable!that!could!even!partially!explain!the!gap!in!religiosity!between!these!two!remarkably!similar!countries.!!!Religious!traditions,!secularization!trends,!or!any!other!composite!cultural!institution!or!process,!are!made!up!of!complex!systems!of!cause!and!effect.!This!! 91!paper!serves!as!an!illustration!of!one!such!system.!No!single!theory!can!account!for!the!processes!we!see.!Before!we!can!even!talk!about!secularization,!we!first!have!to!understand!what!specific!processes!we!are!talking!about.!Are!we!talking!about!the!decline!in!supernatural!belief!or!the!decline!of!a!single!religious!tradition?!Unless!we!are!defining!religion!as!a!single!tradition,!such!as!Christianity,!or!even!Catholicism!the!decline!of!religion!is!too!broad!a!term!to!be!meaningful.!When!we!include!in!our!scope!religion!practices!and!religious!belief!generally,!the!vagueness!of!the!definition!of!religion!starts!to!cause!problems.!Some!religions!are!belief!centric;!others!put!more!emphasis!on!practice.!Regardless!of!what!type!of!religion!one!is!looking!at,!looking!at!these!two!things!separately!and!more!systematically!can!only!make!our!research!(and!us!as!researchers)!stronger.!!! (! 92!Chapter(4: (“Spiritual(But(Not(Religious”:(cognition(and(conversion(in(understanding(alternative(beliefs.(!4.1 Introduction(In!many!parts!of!the!secularizing!world,!such!as!Northern!Europe!and!the!west!coast!of!the!United!States!and!Canada,!traditional!organized!religion!is!giving!way!to!yoga!studios,!spiritual!retreats,!and!healing!crystals.!The!idea!that!spirituality!without!religion!is!resonating!with!a!growing!populace!is!seen!in!best[selling!authors!and!gurus!like!Deepak!Chopra,!Eckhart!Tolle,!and!Paolo!Coelho.!Is!there!a!particular!psychological!profile!that!sets!this!movement!apart!from!traditional!religion!on!one!hand!and!non[religious!populations!on!the!other?!Can!these!people!be!identified!as!a!separate!category!from!the!religious!based!on!the!cognitive!tendencies!explored!in!the!previous!chapters?!Are!these!non[religious!but!spiritual!people!in!Europe!different!from!those!in!North!America?!A!growing!number!of!people!in!North!America!and!elsewhere!describe!themselves!as!spiritual!but!not!religious!(henceforth,!SBNR)!(Bender,!2010;!2012;!Fuller,!2001;!Roof,!1993).!According!to!a!Newsweek!poll,!30%!of!Americans!identified!as!‘spiritual!but!not!religious’!in!2009,!up!from!24%!in!2005!(Newsweek,!2009).!A!recent!newspaper!poll!of!Canadians!found!that,!amongst!those!who!claimed!to!be!atheist!and!agnostics,!27%!still!describe!themselves!as!‘spiritual’!(Todd,!2014).!Related!to!this!is!the!growth!of!so[called!“religious!nones”!or!“unchurched”!Americans!and!Canadians,!the!majority!of!whom!report!believing!in!God!but!do!not!affiliate!with!any!religious!tradition!or!attend!religious!services!(Fuller,!2001).!As!of!2012,!87%!of!people!in!the!USA!reported!believing!in!God,!but!! 93!only!59%!claim!to!be!a!member!of!a!church!or!other!religious!institution,!and!only!30%!claim!to!go!to!church!every!week!(Gallup!poll,!2012).!The!SBNR!phenomenon!is!also!found!in!many!parts!of!Europe,!where!opinion!polls!show!consistently!low!(and!declining)!rates!of!religiosity!but!considerable!rates!of!alternative!supernatural!beliefs!(Voas,!2008).!This!growing!class!of!believers!that!do!not!claim!affiliation!with!an!organized!religious!group!has!been!the!subject!of!substantial!media!scrutiny!and!public!discussion!over!the!last!few!years!(e.g.!BBC,!2014;!Davis,!2014;!de!Castella,!2013;!Oppenheimer,!2014),!but,!at!least!so!far,!psychologists!have!not!given!this!phenomenon!much!attention.!!It!seems!that!many!people!in!North!America!and!Europe!are!turning!away!from!organized!religion!in!favor!of!a!private!spirituality!(Marler!&!Hadaway,!2002;!Roof,!1999).!Moreover,!according!to!Marler!and!Hadaway!(2002),!71%!of!Americans!see!the!concept!of!spirituality!as!something!clearly!distinct!from!religiousness,!and!only!2.6%!of!participants!thought!these!two!terms!should!be!considered!entirely!overlapping!concepts.!This!suggests!that,!at!least!in!the!popular!imagination,!spirituality!and!religiosity!are!seen!to!be!discrete!approaches!to!faith.!Further!work!on!this!front!has!been!conducted!by!Saucier!and!Skrzypińska!(2006)!who!found!evidence!for!‘spiritual’!and!‘religious’!to!have!distinctive!traits!among!American!adults!and!correspond!with!different!belief!correlates!and!personality!profiles!(also!see!Lindeman!&!Aarnio,!2006).!!The!rise!of!the!SBNR!in!the!general!population!has!attracted!some!sociological!attention!(e.g.!Bender,!2010;!2012;!Fuller,!2001;!Roof,!1993;!1999).!However,!very!little!empirical!work!has!been!done!on!SBNR!people!within!the!! 94!discipline!of!psychology!and!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!(an!exception!being!Saucier!&!Skrzypińska,!2006).!!4.1.1 Why(Study(the(SBNR?(! According!to!these!recent!polls!somewhere!between!one!quarter!and!one!third!of!Americans,!and!similarly!sizable!proportions!of!populations!in!Canada!and!parts!of!Europe,!consider!themselves!SBNR.!Therefore,!the!SBNR!are!a!demographically!significant!group!that!is!important!to!understand!in!its!own!right.!As!more!and!more!individuals!describe!themselves!as!SBNR,!several!questions!arise.!Who!are!the!SBNR!and!in!what!ways!are!they!similar!to!and!different!from!people!who!are!traditionally!religious?!How!do!they!compare!to!nonbelievers?!Relative!to!religious!believers!and!nonbelievers,!what!sort!of!beliefs!do!SBNRs!gravitate!towards,!and!what!kind!of!psychological!profile!characterizes!these!beliefs?!!The!study!of!SBNR!is!also!important!for!theoretical!reasons.!While!neither!term!has!a!widely!agreed!upon!definition!(see!Bender,!2012),!it!has!been!suggested!that!‘spiritual’!refers!to!the!individual!experience!of!the!supernatural,!whereas!‘religion’!represents!an!institutional!approach!that!is!less!concerned!with!individual!personal!experience!(Pargament,!1999;!see!Roof,!1993).2!The!SBNR,!with!their!presumed!focus!on!the!primacy!of!individual!experience,!offer!an!opportunity!to!look!into!forms!and!types!of!supernatural!belief!that!may!be!overlooked!in!the!focus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!Pargament!(1999)!aptly!points!out!some!of!the!dangers!in!the!common!practice!of!defining!religion!as!institutional!and!spirituality!as!individual.!Firstly,!that!religion!seems!to!also!be!concerned!with!this!spiritual!realm!and!can’t!be!defined!entirely!by!its!institutions.!Secondly,!that!this!indivualization!and!privatization!are!taking!place!in!a!culture!where!individualization!and!privatization!are!held!in!great!esteem.!This!dichotomy!may!not!exist!beyond!the!west.!!! 95!on!organized!religions!in!the!exploration!of!supernatural!belief.!This!idea!of!individual!experience!should!be!more!closely!tied!to!the!cognitive!then!cultural!basis!of!supernatural!belief,!but!the!cognitive!basis!of!spirituality!may!be!somewhat!different!then!that!of!religiosity.!In!the!previous!two!chapters,!I!have!found!differences!in!how!these!cognitive!biases!predict!belief!in!God,!and!paranormal!belief.!Spirituality!is!another!way!to!test!potential!differences!in!types!of!belief.!!A!third!reason!to!study!SBNRs!is!that!this!group!may!reflect!supernatural!intuitions!and!beliefs!that!are!not!subject!to!strong!cultural!norms!and!pressures!within!conventional!religious!traditions.!As!Adam!Cohen!(2009)!has!argued,!religions!draw!on,!and!in!turn!influence,!the!dominant!cultural!traditions!of!their!societies.!Yet,!the!SBNR!are!a!subpopulation!that!has!rejected,!to!some!degree,!many!of!the!culturally!dominant!institutions!and!religious!beliefs!(Roof,!1993;!1999).!Nevertheless,!I!argue,!they!do!not!lack!the!intuitions!that!support!belief!in!the!supernatural.!Although!some!SBNRs!certainly!bind!together,!forming!communities!and!ritual!practices!supporting!their!beliefs!(Bender,!2010;!Fuller,!2001),!their!practices!are!in!important!respects!outside!of!the!mainstream!of!traditional!religions,!which!often!makes!them!the!target!of!skepticism!or!hostility!from!the!latter.!This!brings!us!to!two!pivotal!psychological!foundations!of!religious!beliefs:!cultural!learning!mechanisms!that!influence!how!ideas!get!transmitted!across!minds!and!cognitive!biases!that!support!a!suite!of!supernatural!intuitions.!Studying!the!SBNR!allows!me!to!further!separate!the!impacts!of!cognitive!biases!and!cultural!learning!on!supernatural!beliefs.!!! 96!4.1.2 The(Importance(of(Cultural(Learning(in(Supporting(Religious(Beliefs(! The!idea!that!there!is!some!set!of!universal!underlying!cognitions!that!support!supernatural!belief!comes!from!the!observations!that!supernatural!belief!thrives!in!human!societies,!existing!in!some!form!in!all!societies!for!all!of!known!history.!It!seems!that!there!is!something!about!supernatural!belief!that!humans!find!deeply!intuitive.!At!the!same!time,!these!supernatural!beliefs!take!an!almost!immeasurably!wide!variety!of!shapes!and!forms!and!levels!of!commitment.!Even!if!there!is!something!basic!about!human!cognition!that!pushes!people!towards!supernatural!belief,!much!of!what!we!believe!is!also!deeply!shaped!by!cultural!experiences!(Gervais!et!al.,!2011;!Norenzayan!&!Gervais,!2013).!Though!people!everywhere!may!have!some!core!intuitions!towards!the!supernatural,!cultural!learning!strategies!cue!people!to!1)!ascertain!whether!religious!belief!is!normatively!acceptable,!important!and!meaningful,!and!2)!trust!particular!beliefs!among!myriad!possibilities!supported!by!these!intuitions.!These!cultural!learning!strategies!and!pressures!mean!that!even!people!whose!intuitions!towards!the!supernatural!are!weak!can!(and!often!do)!acquire!religious!beliefs!though!cultural!learning!(e.g.!Henrich,!2009).!Differences!in!normative!acceptability!of!specific!beliefs!across!cultures!can!be!created!and!maintained!by!cultural!learning!strategies!(Chudek!&!Henrich,!2011).!When!strongly!established!cultural!norms!are!in!place,!people!may!develop!a!narrower!range!of!beliefs!and!experiences!of!the!supernatural!than!people!left!to!create!belief!systems!largely!their!own.!If!we!wish!to!explore!and!understand!the!underlying!cognitive!components!of!supernatural!beliefs,!then!we!may!benefit!from!! 97!studying!a!demographic!group!that!has!been!exposed!to!less!explicit!cultural!pressures!towards!a!specific!type!of!supernatural!belief!than!the!traditionally!religious!folks.!Relatedly,!certain!intuitions!towards!the!supernatural!may!play!a!less!central!role!in!religious!beliefs,!on!average,!when!strong!cultural!mechanisms!are!in!place!that!work!against!these!intuitions!(see!previous!chapter).!Religions!teach!a!type!of!belief,!which!constrains!adherents’!beliefs.!Christianity,!for!instance,!has!explicit!teachings!against!animism,!and!living!in!a!Christian!society!has!previously!been!linked!to!lower!anthropomorphic!tendencies!(Willard!&!Norenzayan,!2013).!!4.1.3 Current(Research((! This!chapter!has!two!primary!goals:!First,!to!create!a!profile!of!cognitive!traits!(discussed!in!the!previous!two!chapters)!and!beliefs!for!the!SBNR!and!compare!them!to!the!religious!and!non[religious.!These!latter!two!groups!have!been!well!explored!in!the!literature,!and!several!hypotheses!have!been!developed!around!them.!I!tested!some!of!these!hypotheses!and!their!relationships!to!this!third!group,!the!SBNR,!in!samples!from!North!America!and!Europe.!Since!both!are!supernatural!believers,!the!SBNR!should!be!more!similar!to!the!religious!than!the!non[religious!in!terms!of!their!underlying!tendencies!to!overuse!mental!state!reasoning.!Second,!I!looked!at!how!similar!the!SBNR!are!across!three!countries,!the!USA,!the!Czech!Republic,!and!Slovakia,!in!terms!of!these!cognitive!profiles!and!the!types!of!belief!they!hold.!I!expect!that!beliefs!will!differ!even!when!cognitive!tendencies!hold.!With!! 98!these!differences!I!will!assess!the!impact!of!cognition,!cultural!learning,!and!upbringing!on!current!belief!and!conversion.!!This!chapter!is!divided!into!four!separate!analyses,!each!focused!on!a!different!hypothesis:!!Analysis+1!examines!the!relationship!between!cognitive!biases!and!affiliation!as!SBNR,!religious,!and!non[religious.!I!predicted!that!SBNR!will!be!cognitively!similar!to!religious!participants,!showing!similar!level!of!the!ToM!based!cognitive!biases!(mentalizing,!dualism!and!anthropomorphism),!despite!being!‘not!religious’.!I!also!expected!that!these!effects!are!similar!in!all!three!samples.!Unlike!beliefs!themselves,!the!cognition!that!underlies!these!beliefs!should!be!consistent!across!cultures.!!Analysis+2!looks!at!!the!cultural!difference!in!the!patterns!of!belief!for!these!three!groups!across!the!Czech!Republic,!Slovakia!and!the!US.!I!expect!that!belief!will!differ!across!these!three!countries!to!a!greater!extent!then!the!cognitive!biases!listed!above,!despite!them!all!having!historical!roots!in!the!same!religious!beliefs!(i.e.!Christian).!I!predict!belief!will!be!be!more!influenced!by!cultural!learning!then!cognition!and!therefore!show!greater!variability!across!different!cultural!settings.!Analysis+3!looks!at!how!participants’!self[reported!childhood!affiliation!predicts!current!beliefs.!I!explored!the!hypothesis!that!how!people!were!raised!(religiously,!SBNR,!or!not!religious)!has!an!impact!on!what!they!believe!as!adults,!regardless!of!what!they!believe!now.!Childhood!exposure!to!beliefs!can!be!predicted!to!have!some!long[term!impact!and!that!what!participants’!currently!believe,!as!much!of!culture!is!! 99!learned!in!childhood.!This!would!suggest!that!at!least!some!of!the!cultural!component!of!beliefs!is!fixed!in!childhood,!and!impacts!adults’!perceptions!of!belief.!!Analysis+4!investigates!how!cognitive!biases!predict!conversion!from!one!group!to!another!since!childhood!(e.g.,!from!non[religious!to!SBNR).!Those!high!in!these!ToM!based!cognitive!traits!should!be!more!likely!to!be!either!religious!or!SBNR,!and!with!those!low!in!them!becoming!non[religious,!regardless!of!their!relative!upbringings.!!4.2 Methods(4.2.1 Participants(My!samples!consisted!of!1013!(58%!female)!Americans!recruited!through!Amazon’s!Mechanical!Turk,!1010!Czechs!(50%!female)!and!1012!Slovakians!(50%!female)!recruited!through!IPSOS!Czech!Republic’s!paid!subject!pool3!(see!Table!4.1).!I!took!several!steps!to!ensure!high!data!quality!following!recommended!guidelines!for!online!data!collection.!In!the!American!sample,!four!nonsense!questions!were!placed!throughout!the!survey!to!ensure!that!participants!were!paying!attention,!as!well!as!two!trick!questions!near!the!end!of!the!survey!(Buhrmester!et!al.,!2011)4.!Participants!who!failed!to!answer!any!of!these!questions!correctly!were!removed!before!analysis!(63!participants!whose!responses!did!not!pass!quality!check,!were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3!This!is!the!same!sample!used!in!the!previous!chapter.!!4!Questions!have!been!raised!recently!as!to!the!quality!of!M[Turk!for!experimental!samples.!Many!of!the!people!who!participate!via!M[Turk!have!done!dozens!of!studies.!Though!I!am!sensitive!to!these!concerns,!I!only!collected!survey!data!here.!There!is!no!experimental!manipulation!and!little!worry!about!demand!characteristics!regarding!how!participants!understood!the!purpose!of!the!study.!Still,!it!is!clear!from!the!demographic!presented!in!table!4.1!that!the!M[Turk!sample!is!not!entirely!representative!of!the!US!population.!There!are!more!females!then!males!and!more!people!are!non[religious!then!the!population!as!a!whole.!!! 100!removed!from!an!original!sample!size!of!1076).!No!one!was!removed!from!the!Czech!and!Slovakian!data.!These!three!samples!were!used!because!of!their!religious!differences,!Slovakia!being!the!most!religious!and!Czech!being!the!least,!and!because!each!country!has!a!sizable!proportion!of!SBNR!(Fig.!4.1).!Table'4.1:'Demographics'Demographic(Dimension( USA( Czech( Slovakia(Age( ' ' 'Minimum((years)( 18' 18' 18'Maximum((years)( 82' 65' 65'Mean((years)( 32.3' 40.6' 41.3'Gender( ' ' 'Male((%)( 42' 50' 50'Female((%)( 58' 50' 50'Religious(Affiliation((type)' ' 'Religious((%)( 24.9' 17.5' 61.8'SBNR((%)( 34.3' 36.0' 21.7'Non^religious((%)( 40.8' 46.5' 16.5'!!Figure'4.1:'Religious'group'by'country.'Percentage'of'sample'in'parenthesis.'(35.8)(17.4)(46.2)(21.5)(61.4)(16.4)(34.2)(24.8)(41)0204060Czech Slovakia USAPercentSBNR Religious Not ReligiousReligious, Not Religious and SBNR by Country! 101!4.2.2 Materials(In!the!USA,!the!survey!was!conducted!using!the!online!software!from!surveymonkey.com.!Both!the!Czech!and!Slovakian!samples!were!collected!by!IPSOS’s!survey!system.!A!bilingual!translator!translated!the!surveys!into!Czech!and!Slovakian!and!then!translated!the!responses!back!into!English.!Inconsistencies!were!then!taken!to!a!professional!interpreter!for!clarification.!All!belief!and!demographic!questions!were!asked!at!the!end!of!the!survey,!after!all!other!measures.!Teleology!was!not!collected!in!the!US!sample!and!therefore!has!not!been!included!in!these!analyses.!!4.2.3 Measures(!Mentalizing+(EQ)+I!used!Baron[Cohen’s!(2004)!Empathy!Quotient!to!measure!mentalizing!(USA!α=0.90;!Czech:!α=0.87;!and!Slovakia:!α=0.87).!!Dualism+I!used!Stanovich’s!(1989)!dualism!scale!(USA:!α=0.85;!Czech:!α!=!0.76;!Slovakia:!α!=!0.75).!!Anthropomorphism+(IDAQ)+I!used!Waytz,!Cacciopio!&!Epley’s!(2010a)!Individual!Differences!in!Anthropomorphism!Quotient!(IDAQ;!USA:!α=0.84;!Czech: α!=!0.85;!Slovakia:!α!=!0.89)!!++! 102!Affiliation+I!asked!participants!to!categorize!their!supernatural!belief!in!one!of!three!ways:!religious,!spiritual!but!not!religious,!or!non[religious!(i.e.!I!consider!myself!to!be:!religious/spiritual!but!not!religious/non[religious).!I!also!asked!how!participants!were!raised!using!these!same!categories.!Two!additional!questions!asked!participants!to!rate!how!religious!they!were!and!how!spiritual!they!were!on!a!10[point!scale.!!Supernatural+Belief+I!measured!supernatural!belief!in!two!different!ways.!I!measured!belief!in!God!using!the!three!questions!seen!in!previous!chapters!(USA:!α=0.93;!Czech:!α=0.70;!Slovakia:!α=0.75).!I!also!looked!at!other!types!of!supernatural!belief!using!the!paranormal!belief!scale!(Tobacyk,!2004).!Before!administering!the!scale,!I!removed!the!religiosity!subscale!to!make!sure!we!were!measuring!something!separate!from!religiosity.!I!also!removed!the!mystical!creatures!subscale,!because!of!its!cultural!specificity!(USA:!α=0.96;!Czech:!α=0.93;!and!Slovakia:!α=0.94).!!Analytic+Thinking+and+Anti\Science+Beliefs+Previous!research!has!linked!analytic!thinking!to!religious!disbelief!(Gervais!&!Norenzayan,!2012;!Shenhav!et!al.,!2012).!Similarly,!religious!participants!tend!to!score!lower!on!analytic!thinking!measures!than!the!non[religious.!I!wanted!to!see!if!this!relationship!held!true!for!SBNR!participants!and!control!for!it!in!some!of!our!analysis.!This!gives!me!some!insight!into!whether!this!relationship!is!about!supernatural!belief!in!general!or!religious!belief!more!specifically.!I!used!the!Cognitive!Reflection!Task!which!consists!of!three!questions!designed!to!have!both!! 103!incorrect!intuitive!answers!and!correct!analytic!answers!(Frederick,!2005)!to!evaluate!analytic!thinking!abilities.!I!also!measured!anti[science!belief!as!an!additional!non[religious!belief!system!that!has!been!related!to!religious!belief!(e.g.!“I!don't!believe!science!can!answer!most!questions!about!the!world”!and!“I!trust!that!scientific!findings!are,!for!the!most!part,!correct.”!(R);!see!Appendix!A)(USA:!α=0.86;!Czech:!α=0.67;!and!Slovakia:!α=0.68).!4.3 Analysis(1:(Predicting(Group(Affiliation(from(Cognitive(Biases(!In!analysis!1,!I!looked!at!how!the!cognitive!biases!for!supernatural!belief!predict!participants’!self[categorizations!as!religious,!SBNR,!or!non[religious.!!4.3.1 Results((! To!establish!validity!for!participants’!categorizations!as!religious,!SBRN,!and!not!religious,!I!used!a!multinomial!logistic!regression!to!predict!these!categories!from!ratings!of!religiosity!and!spirituality.!SBNR!participants!were!set!as!the!comparison!group!(intercept)!and!religious!and!not!religious!participants!were!compared!to!them.!All!predictor!variables!were!standardized,!so!odds!could!be!interpreted!as!the!odds!of!being!religious!or!non[religious!rather!than!SBNR!for!a!one!standard!deviation!change!in!a!predictor!variable.!Age!in!decades,!gender!(females!=!1,!males=0),!education,!and!income!were!included!as!controls.!Across!all!three!samples,!ratings!of!religiosity!positively!predicted!being!religious!over!SBNR!(Odds:!14.33,!95%CI:!10.83!to!18.96),!and!ratings!of!spirituality!negatively!predicted!being!religious!over!SBNR,!suggesting!that!high!rating!of!spirituality!are!more!related!to!being!SBNR!than!religious!when!religiosity!is!controlled!for!(Odds:!! 104!0.69,!95%CI:!0.51!to!0.93).!Ratings!on!both!measures!negatively!predicted!being!not!religious!(religious:!Odds:!0.39,!95%CI:!0.29!to!0.53;!spiritual:!Odds:!0.11,!95%CI:!0.08!to!0.14).!!I!again!used!a!multinomial!logistic!regression!with!SBNR!as!the!comparison!category!to!evaluate!how!cognitive!biases!predicted!group!membership.!All!predictor!variables!were!standardized.!I!found!that!higher!scores!on!dualism!and!lower!scores!on!mentalizing!predicted!being!religious!over!SBNR!(Table!4.2).!Lower!scores!on!dualism,!anthropomorphism,!and!mentalizing!predicated!being!non[religious!over!SBNR.!Analytic!thinking!scores!were!lower!in!the!religious!than!the!SBNR,!but!no!difference!was!found!between!the!non[religious!and!the!SBNR!across!the!three!samples.!The!SBNR!were!significantly!higher!in!analytic!thinking!than!the!non[religious!in!the!Slovakian!sample.!!! 105!B(SE) Odds Lower Upper B(SE) Odds Lower Upper B(SE) Odds Lower Upper B(SE) Odds Lower UpperIntercept 40.334(0.39) 1.39 0.65 3.00 <0.694(0.36)† 0.50 0.25 1.01 42.104(0.36)*** 8.13 3.97 16.61 40.144(0.22) 1.25 0.77 1.76EQ <0.114(0.10) 0.89 0.75 1.06 <0.214(0.10)* 0.81 0.67 0.98 <0.134(0.09) 0.87 0.74 1.03 <0.154(0.05)** 0.86 0.79 0.95Dualism 40.374(0.10)***4 1.44 1.18 1.76 40.244(0.11)* 1.27 1.02 1.57 40.234(0.09)* 1.26 1.06 1.51 40.264(0.06)*** 1.30 1.16 1.45Anthro <0.034(0.08) 0.97 0.82 1.15 <0.104(0.10) 0.90 0.75 1.09 <0.044(0.09) 0.96 0.80 1.14 <0.074(0.05) 0.93 0.85 1.03Analytic <0.144(0.09) 0.87 0.73 1.04 <0.094(0.10) 0.92 0.75 1.12 <0.234(0.09)** 0.79 0.66 0.94 <0.154(0.05)** 0.86 0.77 0.96Age <0.204(0.08)** 0.82 0.71 0.95 40.024(0.07) 1.02 0.89 1.18 <0.184(0.07)* 0.83 0.72 0.96 <0.114(0.04)** 0.90 0.82 0.97Female <0.274(0.19) 0.77 0.53 1.10 <0.114(0.21) 0.89 0.59 1.36 40.164(0.19) 1.17 0.81 1.71 <0.024(0.11) 0.98 0.79 1.21Czech <0.314(0.15)* 0.74 0.55 0.99Slovakia 41.574(0.15)*** 4.79 3.58 6.40!Intercept 41.764(0.36)*** 5.82 2.87 11.79 40.884(0.27)** 2.41 1.40 4.17 41.354(0.46)** 3.88 1.58 9.50 <1.384(0.20)*** 2.89 2.66 5.94EQ <0.224(0.08)** 0.80 0.68 0.94 <0.384(0.08)*** 0.68 0.58 0.80 <0.224(0.12)† 0.80 0.63 1.01 <0.294(0.06)*** 0.75 0.68 0.83Dualism <0.604(0.09)*** 0.55 0.46 0.65 <0.324(0.08)4*** 0.73 0.62 0.86 <0.344(0.11)** 0.72 0.57 0.88 <0.444(0.05)*** 0.64 0.58 0.71Anthro <0.234(0.08)** 0.80 0.68 0.94 <0.174(0.08)* 0.84 0.72 0.99 <0.154(0.12) 0.86 0.68 1.10 <0.194(0.05)*** 0.83 0.75 0.92Analytic 40.084(0.08) 1.08 0.92 1.27 <0.014(0.08) 0.99 0.84 1.16 <0.234(0.12)* 0.79 0.63 0.99 <0.024(0.05) 0.98 0.89 1.08Age <0.364(0.07)*** 0.70 0.60 0.80 <0.114(0.06)† 0.89 0.79 1.01 <0.294(0.10)** 0.75 0.62 0.91 <0.234(0.04)*** 0.80 0.73 0.86Female <0.404(0.17)* 0.67 0.48 1.93 <0.344(0.17)* 0.71 0.51 0.99 <0.264(0.26) 0.77 0.46 1.27 <0.374(0.10)*** 0.69 0.56 0.85Czech 40.094(0.15) 1.09 0.84 1.42Slovakia <0.374(0.15)* 0.69 0.51 0.95Note:4†p<0.10,4*p<0.05,4**p<0.01,4***p<0.001.4Additional4control4variables4included:4education4and4income.4ReligiousNot!ReligiousUSA Czech Slovakia All!data95%4CI4Odds4 95%4CI4Odds4 95%4CI4Odds4 95%4CI4Odds4Table&4.2:&Cognitive&biases&predicting&belief&in&each&country&using&a&multinomial&logistic&regression.&SBNR&participants&are&the&comparison&group.&Each&model&represents&a&different&country,&or&a&combination&of&all&countries.&&! 106!!! A!second!analysis!was!run!predicting!participants’!ratings!of!“religious”!and!“spiritual”!with!these!cognitive!biases.!Both!regressions!were!run!across!all!three!samples,!controlling!for!country!level!difference.!The!“spiritual”!regression!included!“religious”!as!a!predictor!(and!vice!versa)!to!account!for!the!relationship!between!these!two!variables.!Findings!were!consistent!with!the!previous!analyses!(see!Table!4.3).!!Table&4.3:&Cognitive&biases&predicting&ratings&of&“spiritual”&and&“religious”&across&all&three&countries.&Each&model&includes&the&DV&of&the&other&model&as&a&control&for&the&relationship&between&DVs.&&!4.3.2 Discussion,! SBNR!participants!showed!a!different!cognitive!profile!from!religious!and!nonJreligious!participants,!but!these!differences!are!more!pronounced!between!SBNR!and!nonJreligious!participants!than!between!SBNR!and!religious!ones.!This!suggests!that!the!‘not!religious’!part!of!SBNR!has!more!to!do!with!the!relationship!β!(SE) Lower Upper β!(SE) Lower UpperIntercept 10.21!(0.78) 11.74 !!1.32 !1.26!(0.79) 10.29 !2.81EQ !0.17!(0.02)*** !!0.14 !!0.21 10.07!(0.02)*** 10.11 10.04Dualism !0.11!(0.02)*** !!0.08 !!0.14 !0.09!(0.02)*** !0.06 !0.12Anthro !0.03!(0.01)* !!0.004 !!0.06 !0.01!(0.01) 10.02 !0.04Analytic !0.01!(0.02) 10.02 !!0.04 10.06!(0.02)*** 10.09 10.03Age !0.08!(0.01)*** !!0.06 !!0.10 10.001!(0.01) 10.02 !0.02Sex !0.10!(0.03)*** !!0.04 !!0.16 10.04!(0.03) 10.11 !0.02Czech 10.13!(0.05)* 10.23 10.02 10.30!(0.05)*** 10.41 10.20Slovakia 10.17!(0.05)** 10.27 10.06 !0.17!(0.05)** !0.07 !0.29Religious !0.55!(0.02)*** !!0.52 !!0.58 111 111 111Spiritual 111 111 111 !0.56!(0.02)*** !0.53 !0.60Spiritual ReligiousNote:!†p<0.10,!*p<0.05,!**p<0.01,!***p<0.001.!Additional!control!variables!included:!education!and!income.!95%!CI!Odds! 95%!CI!Odds!Adj.!R2=0.43,!F(28,!2883)=79.66*** Adj.!R2=0.42,!F(28,!2883)=75.14***! 107!towards!organized!religions!than!it!does!with!the!intuitions!about!the!supernatural!(see!Roof,!1993;!1999).!Dualism!is!the!notable!exception!to!this;!religious!participants!score!significantly!higher!on!this!dimension!than!SBNR!participants.!This!is!consistent!with!previous!findings!(Willard!&!Norenzayan,!2013).!!Higher!mentalizing!scored!increases!the!odds!participants!were!SBNR!rather!than!religious.!Though!this!difference!is!not!large!(one!standard!deviation!change!on!EQ!decreases!the!odds!of!being!religious!by!18%),!it!not!trivial!either.!This!finding!suggests!that!the!SBNR!think!they!are!better!at!knowing!other’s!minds—the!EQ!is!a!reflective!measure—than!either!the!religious!or!nonJreligious.!Whether!this!belief!is!based!on!selfJenhancement!or!is!a!real!difference!in!ability!remains!to!be!tested.!If!the!difference!is!verified,!it!may!suggest!that!the!impact!of!thinking!about!and!understanding!the!minds!of!other!people—rather!than!use!this!ability!to!interpret!nonJmentalistic!phenomenon—may!have!a!more!important!role!to!play!in!alternative!beliefs!than!traditional!ones!in!the!Western!world.!According!to!work!by!Saucier!and!Skrzypińska!(2006)!spirituality!is!not!related!to!greater!extroversion,!suggesting!that!the!SBNR!are!not!simply!more!outgoing!than!their!religious!and!nonJreligious!counterparts.!This!difference!could!also!be!related!to!why!people!choose!to!be!SBNR!rather!than!adopting!a!more!traditional!belief!system,!rather!than!be!specific!to!beliefs!themselves.!People!who!are!higher!in!mentalizing!may!be!more!likely!to!adopt!an!alternative!system!of!belief.!NonJreligious!participants,!though,!appear!to!be!less!prone!to!any!of!these!intuitions.!These!differences!are!not!accounted!for!by!differences!in!analytic!thinking.!Though!previous!research!has!shown!that!analytic!thinking!is!related!to!! 108!lower!religious!belief!(see!Gervais!&!Norenzayan,!2012;!Pennycook!et!al.,!2012;!Shenhav!et!al.,!2012),!the!relationship!between!belief!and!these!cognitive!biases!holds!independent!of!this!tendency.!In!the!USA!and!Czech!Republic,!the!SBNR!are!not!markedly!different!from!the!nonJreligious!on!this!analytic!thinking!task.!In!Slovakia,!the!SBNR!score!significantly!higher!in!analytic!thinking!than!the!nonJreligious.!Any!negative!relationship!between!analytic!thinking!and!religiosity!does!not!seem!to!extend!to!supernatural!believers!more!generally.!This!is!consistent!with!research!that!demonstrates!people!can!and!do!use!natural!and!supernatural!causal!reasoning!together!without!conflict!(Legare!&!Gelman,!2008;!Legare,!Evans,!Rosengren,!&!Harris,!2012),!and!suggest!that!the!relationship!to!analytic!thinking!may!have!something!to!do!with!the!specifics!of!Christianity!rather!than!the!adoption!of!supernatural!explanations.!!Finally,!the!patterns!of!prediction!are!very!similar!across!all!three!samples.!Though!the!magnitude!and!significance!differs!somewhat,!all!findings!are!trending!in!a!similar!way!across!these!three!populations.!Further,!when!I!looked!at!people’s!ratings!of!spirituality!or!religiosity,!while!controlling!for!ratings!of!the!other,!I!found!results!consistent!with!this!interpretation.!This!gives!credence!to!the!idea!that!these!findings!are!not!country!specific!and!may!be!generalizable,!at!least!across!educated,!Western!samples.!Across!both!analyses!and!all!three!countries,!the!SBNR!have!some!traits!that!make!them!psychologically!distinguishable!from!both!the!religious!and!the!nonJreligious.!!! 109!4.4 Analysis,2:,Differences,in,Supernatural,Beliefs,In!analysis!2!I!address!questions!surrounding!how!these!supernatural!belief!groups!are!affected!by!their!culture!of!origin.!Even!if!the!SBNR,!religious,!and!nonJreligious!are!similar!in!terms!of!the!cognitive!biases!I!explored!above,!it!should!be!expected!that!participants’!country!of!origin!affects!the!specificity!of!what!they!believe.!I!focus!on!three!different!types!of!beliefs:!belief!in!God,!paranormal!belief,!and!antiJscience!beliefs.!The!previous!chapter!suggested!that!there!is!little!difference!between!the!religious!and!the!nonJreligious!in!paranormal!beliefs!in!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia.!I!have!looked!at!if!this!relationship!holds!in!the!American!sample.!!AntiJscience!beliefs!appear!to!be!flourishing!among!the!religious!in!the!USA,!at!least!according!to!the!news!media!(Gatehouse,!2014;!Gleick,!2011;!Otto,!2012).!Still,!crossJcultural!and!developmental!research!has!suggested!that!natural,!or!scientific,!and!supernatural!beliefs!are!often!and!easily!held!at!the!same!time!(Legare!et!al.,!2012;!Legare!&!Gelman,!2008).!By!looking!across!three!countries,!I!have!tested!if!this!effect!is!a!result!of!American!culture,!or!something!specific!to!religious!or!supernatural!belief.!Further,!by!looking!at!the!SBNR,!I!have!assessed!if!this!difference!is!about!religion!specifically!or!supernatural!belief!more!generally.!If!the!SBNR!do!not!hold!the!same!antiJscience!beliefs!as!the!religious,!this!would!suggest!that!it!is!something!about!religion!specifically!rather!than!being!a!characteristic!of!supernatural!believers!more!generally.!!!! 110!4.4.1 Results,,! I!used!a!set!of!regression!analyses!with!dummy!codes!to!compare!affiliation!groups!to!evaluate!differences!in!belief.!Age!in!decades,!gender!(females!=!1,!males=0),!education,!and!income!were!included!as!controls.!For!this!set!of!regressions,!nonJreligious!participants!were!set!as!the!comparison!group,!and!both!religious!and!SBNR!participants!were!compared!to!them.!All!dependent!variables!were!standardized!and!centered!to!a!mean!of!0.!Each!β'is!the!standard!deviation!difference!in!the!DV!in!a!category!compared!to!the!intercept,!except!age,!which!should!be!read!as!standard!deviations!in!the!DV!per!decade!of!age.!I!looked!at!the!interaction!between!country!and!affiliation!group!to!assess!how!these!beliefs!differ!by!group!and!country.!!Unsurprisingly,!religious!and!SBRN!were!higher!on!belief!in!God,!paranormal!belief!and!antiJscience!views!then!nonJreligious!participants,!controlling!for!country!level!differences!(see!Table!4.4).!Both!the!Czech!and!Slovakia!samples!were!higher!in!paranormal!belief!and!antiJscience!belief!than!the!American!sample!overall,!but!this!was!not!the!case!with!belief!in!God.!Rather,!I!found!country!specific!effects!here.!In!the!American!sample,!both!the!religious!and!SBNR!have!higher!ratings!of!belief!in!God!than!their!Czech!or!Slovak!counterparts.!It!is!only!the!nonJreligious!who!show!no!country!level!differences!(Fig.!4.2).!!In!the!country!x!group!interactions,!the!SBNR!in!both!Czech!and!Slovakia!rate!paranormal!belief!lower!that!would!be!expected!based!on!the!differences!between!the!SBNR!and!nonJreligious!seen!in!the!American!sample!(Czech:!β!=!J0.31;!Slovakia:!β!=!J0.38).!AntiJscience!views!showed!a!similar!result.!The!difference!between!both!! 111!SBNR!and!religious!compared!to!the!nonJreligious!is!less!pronounces!in!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!than!in!the!American!sample!(Czech:!SBNR'β!=!J0.26,!religious!β!=!J0.60;!Slovakia:!SBNR'β!=!J0.34,!religious!β!=!J0.71).!!!Table&4.4:&Group&differences&in&belief.&Each&model&represents&a&different&DV&(belief&in&God,&paranormal&belief,&and&antiDscience&beliefs).&The&top&section&is&looks&are&interaction&with&affiliation&groups.&The&second&section&looks&at&interactions&between&ratings&of&spirituality&and&religiosity&controlling&for&country&level&differences.&&!! Again,!these!differences!can!be!reassessed!based!on!individual!ratings!of!how!spiritual!and!how!religious!participants!are,!controlling!for!country!level!differences.!A!second!set!of!regressions!was!run!across!all!three!beliefs!using!spiritual!and!religious!ratings,!and!the!interaction!between!them,!as!predictors!rather!than!group!affiliation.!Both!beliefs!in!God!and!antiJscience!beliefs!are!β!(SE) Lower Upper β!(SE) Lower Upper β!(SE) Lower UpperIntercept 10.78!(0.68) 12.13 0.55 12.02!(0.68)** 13.34 10.69 12.09!(0.57)*** 13.22 10.96SBNR !1.57!(0.05)*** 1.48 1.67 !0.94!(0.07)*** 0.81 1.07 !0.56!(0.06)*** 0.45 0.67Religious !2.13!(0.05)*** 2.03 2.24 !0.48!(0.07)*** 0.34 0.63 !0.96!(0.06)*** 0.83 1.07Czech !0.07!(0.06) 10.04 0.18 !0.59!(0.08)*** 0.44 0.74 !1.47!(0.06)*** 1.34 1.60Slovakia !0.04!(0.07) 10.10 0.17 !0.46!(0.09)*** 0.28 0.65 !1.44!(0.08)*** 1.28 1.59Age !0.03!(0.01)* 0.004 0.05 !0.004!(0.01) 10.02 0.03 !0.02!(0.02) 10.01 0.03Female !0.08!(0.03)** 0.02 0.13 !0.17!(0.04)*** 0.10 0.24 !0.17!(0.03)*** 0.11 0.23SBNR*Czech 10.81!(0.07)*** 10.94 10.67 10.31!(0.09)*** 10.48 10.12 10.26!(0.08)*** 10.41 10.10Relig.*Czech 10.75!(0.08)*** 10.91 10.59 !0.14!(0.11)! 10.07 0.35 10.60!(0.09)*** 10.77 10.42SBNR*Slov. 10.77!(0.08)*** 10.93 10.60 10.38!(0.11)*** 10.60 10.16 10.34!(0.10)*** 10.53 10.15Relig*Slov. 10.56!(0.08)*** 10.72 10.41 !0.07!(0.11) 10.14 0.28 10.71!(0.09)*** 10.89 10.54Adj.!R2!=!0.56, Adj.!R2=0.19, Adj.!R2=0.41,!F(29,!2928)=132.60*** F(31,!2947)=24.04*** F(31,2952)=67.89***Intercept 10.41!(0.65) 11.68 0.86 10.57!(0.90) 12.34 1.20 11.98!(0.78)* 13.51 10.44Spiritual !0.36!(0.02)*** 0.33 0.40 !0.35!(0.02)*** 0.31 0.40 !0.19!(0.02)*** 0.15 0.22Religious !0.49!(0.02)*** 0.46 0.53 !0.04!(0.02) 10.01 0.08 !0.12!(0.02)*** 0.08 0.16Age 10.01!(0.01) 10.03 0.01 10.02!(0.01) 10.04 0.01 10.001!(0.01) 10.02 0.02Female !0.09!(0.02)*** 0.04! 0.14 !0.14!(0.03)*** 0.08! 0.21 !0.17!(0.03)*** 0.12 0.23Czech 10.16!(0.04)*** 10.24! 10.08 !0.61!(0.06)*** 0.50 0.73 !1.33!(0.05)*** 1.24 1.43Slovakia 10.07!(0.04)† 10.15 0.01 !0.45!(0.06)*** 0.33 0.56 !1.16!(0.05)*** 1.07 1.26Spirit*Relig. 10.07!(0.01)*** 10.10 10.05 10.10!(0.02)*** 10.13 10.06 !0.01!(0.02) 10.02 0.04Adj.!R2!=!0.24, Adj.!R2=0.24,! Adj.!R2!=!0.43,!F(26,!2923)!=!38.67*** F(26,!2922)!=!37.13*** F(26,!2925)!=!87.26***GroupNote:!†p<0.10,!*p<0.05,!**p<0.01,!***p<0.001.!Additional!control!variables!included:!education!and!income.!Spiritual0&0ReligiousGod Paranormal Anti0Science! 112!independently!predicted!by!ratings!of!religiosity!and!spirituality!(see!Table!4.4).!Paranormal!belief!is!only!predicted!by!spirituality,!not!religiosity.!There!is!a!significant!negative!interaction!between!religiosity!and!spirituality!for!both!belief!in!God!and!paranormal!belief.!This!means!that!ratings!of!spirituality!become!weaker!predictors!the!more!religious!someone!is!(Fig!4.3).!This!effect!is!much!more!pronounced!for!paranormal!beliefs!than!belief!in!God.!!!!Figure&4.2:&Belief&ratings&within&each&country.&Error&bars&are&95%&confidence&intervals.&!God Paranormal Anti Sci.0.000.250.500.75SBNR Religious Not Religious SBNR Religious Not Religious SBNR Religious Not ReligiousCurrent belief group. Errorbars are 95% confidence intervals.Average Belief scaled between 0 and 1Czech Slovakia USABelief by Affilation Group and Country! 113!!4.4.2 Discussion,! Despite!the!‘not!religious’!in!‘spiritual!but!not!religious’,!the!SBNR!participants!do!not!lack!supernatural!beliefs.!They!remain!higher!than!the!nonJreligious!on!both!belief!in!God!and!paranormal!beliefs.!SBNR!participants!do!have!a!lower!belief!in!God!on!average!than!the!religious,!but!they!rate!themselves!as!−0.250.000.250.500.75−1 0 1 2Average Religious BeliefAverage Paranormal BeliefSpirituality  mean −1 SD +1 SDReligiosity and Spirituality Predicting Paranormal Belief−0.50.00.51.0−1 0 1 2Average Religious BeliefAverage Belief in GodSpirituality  mean −1 SD +1 SDReligiosity and Spirituality Predicting Belief in GodFigure&4.3:&Religion&and&spirituality&interaction&plots.&A&predicts&paranormal&belief;&B&predicts&belief&in&God.&&A,B,! 114!equivalent!or!higher,!on!average,!in!paranormal!beliefs.!In!the!American!sample!only,!the!SBNR!are!noticeably!higher!in!paranormal!belief!than!the!religious!(see!Fig!4.2).!The!most!pronounced!difference!between!these!cultural!groups!is!in!belief!in!God.!Both!the!SBRN!and!the!religious!in!the!American!sample!claim!a!stronger!belief!in!God!than!either!the!Czech!or!Slovakia!sample.!!There!are!several!possibilities!that!may!explain!these!differences.!It!may!be!due!to!the!different!makeup!of!the!religious!group!between!these!countries.!The!religious!participants!in!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!are!primarily!Catholic,!where!the!American!sample!is!mostly!Protestant.!Catholics!may!have!a!greater!tolerance!for!paranormal!beliefs!than!the!Protestants.!Another!possibility!is!that!group!differences!are!more!divisive!in!the!USA!than!they!are!in!either!the!Czech!Republic!or!Slovakia.!American!culture!and!media!may!promote!larger!differenced!between!the!religious,!SBNR!and!the!nonJreligious,!causing!more!divisions!between!groups.!The!antiJscience!measure!suggests!that!American!SBNR!people!sit!somewhere!between!religious!and!nonJreligious!participants!on!this!dimension.!Religious!participants!are!significantly!higher!on!antiJscience,!suggesting!the!tendency!to!be!against!science!may!have!as!much!to!do!with!the!specific!teaching!of!religion!(in!this!case,!Christianity)!than!a!conflict!between!scientific!beliefs!and!supernatural!beliefs!more!generally!(see!Legare!et!al.,!2012).!The!Czech!and!Slovakian!samples!have!higher!rates!of!antiJscience!belief!than!the!Americans!overall,!and!show!a!much!smaller!difference!in!their!ratings!between!groups.!This!may!seem!surprising!to!those!who!are!familiar!with!prevalent!antiJevolution!! 115!sentiments!in!the!USA!(Newport,!2014).!The!antiJscience!questions!asked!in!these!questionnaires!look!at!attitudes!towards!science!generally!and!the!belief!in!science!as!a!suitable!tool!to!describe!the!natural!world,!rather!then!questions!specific!to!evolution.!Regardless,!across!all!samples,!the!religious!and!SBNR!have!higher!antiJscience!beliefs!than!the!nonJreligious,!but!the!difference!is!far!more!pronounced!in!the!USA.!Cultural!climate!does!have!a!substantial!impact!here.!This,!and!the!fact!that!ratings!of!spirituality!are!related!to!antiJscience!beliefs!above!and!beyond!religiosity!ratings,!suggests!that!this!effect!is!not!specific!to!religion,!and!there!may!be!some!conflict!with!supernatural!beliefs!more!generally.!Still,!it!may!not!be!the!case!that!supernatural!and!scientific!reasoning!are!at!odds,!but,!rather,!that!those!with!a!supernatural!perspective!of!the!world!feel!science!is!unnecessary!to!explain!the!world!in!which!they!live.!A!greater!variety!of!beliefs!and!cultures!would!be!necessary!to!make!any!strong!conclusions!here.!Again,!these!effects!may!be!specific!to!the!Western!world.!!The!differences!in!cognitive!biases!explored!in!analysis!1!are!remarkably!consistent!across!cultural!groups,!yet!we!still!see!a!country!level!difference!not!only!in!the!level!of!belief,!but!also!in!the!pattern!of!belief.!The!tendency!towards!these!beliefs!may!be!based!in!cognition,!but!the!specific!content!of!each!belief!and!how!these!beliefs!are!expressed!is!largely!determined!by!culture.!Religion!is!a!form!of!culture!(Cohen,!2009;!Cohen!&!Hill,!2007),!and!despite!the!‘naturalness’!of!supernatural!beliefs,!cultural!differences!in!how!these!beliefs!manifest!adds!important!variance!to!these!beliefs,!even!if!broad!trends!remain!the!same.!!! 116!4.5 Analysis,3:,Effects,of,Upbringing,and,Conversion,on,Current,Beliefs,The!existence!of!some!differences!in!belief!between!the!SBNR!and!the!religious!allowed!me!to!test!how!culture!affects!the!learning!of!supernatural!beliefs.!I!used!participants’!categorizations!of!their!upbringing!(religious,!SBNR!and!nonJreligious)!to!predict!their!current!beliefs.!If!cultural!exposure!to!different!religious!cultures!is!a!strong!predictor!of!how!religious!beliefs!are!expressed!(e.g.,!Cohen,!2009)!and!a!great!deal!of!cultural!information!is!learned!in!childhood!(see!Cheung,!Chudek,!&!Heine,!2011),!then!childhood!learning!should!have!some!residual!impact!on!adult!beliefs,!even!if!a!person!is!no!longer!part!of!that!religious!tradition.!!Across!all!three!countries,!belief!in!God!had!the!largest!difference!between!groups.!With!this!in!mind,!the!most!pronounced!impacts!on!upbringing!should!be!in!this!area.!In!addition!to!a!difference!in!the!affiliation!category,!there!is!an!additional!country!level!difference!in!belief.!If!the!country!in!which!one!lives!impacts!the!differences!in!belief!between!groups,!those!differences!should!also!appear!based!on!upbringing.!Specifically,!if!American!religious!participants!have!lower!paranormal!beliefs!than!the!SBNR,!this!difference!should!be!apparent!based!on!upbringing.!Further,!this!should!not!be!the!case!in!either!the!Czech!Republic!or!Slovakia,!where!this!difference!is!not!present.!!!!!! 117!4.5.1 Results,! Regressions!included!dummy!codes!for!current!affiliation!group!and!how!individuals!were!raised!(religious,!SBNR,!or!nonJreligious).!Two!models!were!run.!In!the!first,!how!participants!were!raised!was!interacted!with!current!group!affiliation.!This!shows!how!upbringing!affects!the!beliefs!on!those!who!have!converted!to!a!different!group!as!adults,!compared!with!nonJconverts.!A!second!model!was!run,!interacting!upbringing!and!country,!while!controlling!for!current!belief!affiliation.!This!shows!any!country!level!difference!in!the!effects!of!upbringing.!Though!these!models!can!be!run!together!with!a!threeJway!interaction!term,!these!terms!become!difficult!to!interpret.!Both!models!control!for!age!in!decades,!gender!(female!=!1),!income!and!education.!Variables!are!centered!to!a!mean!of!0!and!dummy!codes!are!used!to!compare!religious!and!not!religious!to!SBNR.!Model!1!looks!at!the!interaction!between!upbringing!and!current!belief!across!all!three!samples!(Table!4.5).!We!found!a!negative!effect!of!being!raised!religiously!across!all!three!beliefs!(God:!β=J0.20;!Paranormal:'β=J0.17;!Anti!science!β=J0.18).!Since!the!nonJreligious!are!our!comparison!group,!this!means!that!participants!who!are!raised!religiously!but!have!since!become!nonJreligious!are!less!likely!to!believe!in!God!and!the!paranormal!and!are!less!likely!to!have!antiJscience!beliefs!than!participants!who!have!always!been!nonJbelievers.!On!the!other!hand,!participants!who!were!raised!religiously!and!are!now!SBNR!are!more!likely!to!believe!in!God!than!SBNR!people!who!converted!from!the!ranks!of!the!nonJreligious!(β=0.47).!This!same!effect!was!found!to!be!marginally!significant!for!those!who!were!raised!! 118!religiously!and!have!remained!religious!(β=0.16).!Participants!who!were!raised!religiously!and!are!now!SBNR!had!somewhat!higher!antiJscience!beliefs!(β=0.17).!Model!2!looks!at!how!these!effects!differ!across!the!three!countries.!I!found!that!being!raised!religiously!or!SBNR!increased!belief!in!God!over!the!nonJreligious!in!the!USA.!There!was!a!significant!interaction!with!how!one!was!raised!and!both!the!Czech!sample!(raised!SBNR:!β=J0.39;!raised!religiously:!β=!J0.28)!and!the!Slovakian!sample!(raised!SBNR:!β=J0.41;!raised!religiously:!β=!J0.32).!The!difference!in!belief!in!God!for!those!raised!religiously!or!SBNR!and!those!raised!not!religiously!is!smaller!for!participants!from!the!Czech!Republic!and!Slovakia!than!for!the!American!participants,!regardless!of!current!affiliation.!!For!participants!in!the!US,!being!raised!religiously!significantly!decreased!the!tendency!to!believe!in!the!paranormal!(β=!J0.19).!There!were!no!significant!interactions!with!country;!still,!the!direction!and!size!of!the!coefficients!for!both!the!Czech!republic!and!Slovakia!suggest!that!this!effect!is!only!found!in!the!USA.!If!we!analyze!the!countries!separately,!we!find!that!the!effect!is!over!twice!the!size!and!only!significant!in!the!US!sample!(Czech:!β=!J0.09!95%!CI:!J0.26!to!0.08;!Slovakia:!β=!J0.09!95%!CI:!J0.30!to!0.10;!USA:!β=!J0.20**!95%!CI:!J0.35!to!J0.06).!!How!one!was!raised!had!no!significant!effects!on!antiJscience!views,!except!in!Slovakia.!Those!who!were!raised!religiously!and!lived!in!Slovakia!were!less!likely!to!hold!antiJscience!beliefs!than!those!who!were!raised!religiously!and!live!in!the!US!(β=!J0.24).!These!models!contain!no!information!about!migration—the!country!in!which!participants!currently!live!may!not!have!been!the!same!one!in!which!they!were!raised.!A!conservative!interpretation!should!reflect!this.!!! 119!Table&4.5:&How&participants&were&raised&predicting&current&belief.&Each&model&represents&a&different&DV&(belief&in&God,&paranormal&belief,&and&antiDscience&beliefs).&!4.5.2 Discussion,! Upbringing!does!have!some!impact!on!adult!belief!across!these!three!samples.!Interestingly,!the!most!consistent!effects!we!found!were!among!those!who!converted!away!from!religion,!becoming!nonJbelievers.!Among!the!nonJreligious,!those!who!were!raised!religiously!were!lower!on!all!three!beliefs!across!all!three!samples.!There!are!two!ways!to!interpret!this:!Either!these!participants!are!β!(SE) Lower Upper β!(SE) Lower Upper β!(SE) Lower UpperIntercept !0.80!(0.71) 62.18 0.58 61.87!(0.68)** 63.21 60.54 60.19!(0.58)*** 63.07 60.78SBNR !1.08!(0.03)*** 1.02 1.15 !0.73!(0.04)*** 0.65 0.83 !0.42!(0.04)*** 0.35 0.50Religious !1.76!(0.04)*** 1.68 1.83 !0.62!(0.05)*** 0.52 0.71 !0.59!(0.04)*** 0.50 0.67Raised!SBNR !0.31!(0.07)*** 0.17 0.46 !0.12!(0.10) 60.07 0.31 60.06!(0.08) 60.22 0.11Raised!Rel. !0.16!(0.05)** 0.06 0.26 60.19!(0.07)** 60.32 60.05 60.03!(0.06) 60.14 0.09Czech 60.22!(0.06)*** 60.11 60.10 !0.42!(0.08)** 0.27 0.58 !1.23!(0.07)*** 1.10 1.36Slovakia 60.21!(0.08)** 60.36 60.07 !0.29!(0.10)** 0.09 0.48 !1.24!(0.09)*** 1.07 1.41Age !0.03!(0.01)** 0.01 0.05 !0.01!(0.01) 60.02 0.03 !0.01!(0.01) 60.01 0.04Female !0.09!(0.03)** 0.03 0.14 !0.17!(0.04)*** 0.10 0.23 !0.17!(0.03)*** 0.11 0.23Raised!SBNR*Czech 60.39!(0.09)*** 60.57 60.21 60.18!(0.12) 60.42 0.06 !0.01!(010) 60.20 0.21Raised!Rel.*Czech 60.28!(0.08)*** 60.43 60.13 !0.12!(0.10) 60.07 0.32 !0.03!(0.09) 60.14 0.20Raised!SBNR*Slov. 60.41!(0.11)*** 60.63 6020 60.10!(0.15) 60.39 0.18 60.17!(0.12) 60.41 0.08Raised!Rel.*Slov. 60.32!(0.08)** 60.39 60.07 !0.13!(0.10) 60.07 0.34 60.24!(0.10)** 60.41 60.06Adj.!R2!=!0.54,! Adj.!R2!=!0.20,! Adj.!R2!=!0.41,!F(18,!2837)!=!169.50*** F(18,!2862)!=!40.68*** F(20,!2856)!=!102.00***Intercept 60.59!(0.70) 61.97 0.78 61.89!(0.68)** 63.23 60.56 61.85!(0.58)** 62.99 60.71SBNR !0.88!(0.04)*** 0.78 0.97 !0.72!(0.06)*** 0.60 0.85 !0.35!(0.05)*** 0.25 0.46Religious !1.72!(0.07)*** 1.58 1.87 !0.64!(0.10)*** 0.44 0.83 !0.50!(0.08)*** 0.33 0.66Raised!SBNR !0.01!(0.08) 60.15 0.17 !0.09!(0.11) 60.11 0.30 60.10!(0.09) 60.27 0.09Raised!Rel. 60.20!(0.05)*** 60.30 60.10 60.17!(0.07)* 60.30 60.03 60.18!(0.06)** 60.29 60.07Czech 60.38!(0.05)*** 60.48 60.29 !0.46!(0.06)*** 0.34 0.58 !1.21!(0.05)*** 1.10 1.31Slovakia 60.40!(0.05)*** 60.50 60.31 !0.36!(0.06)*** 0.24 0.48 !1.05!(0.05)*** 0.95 1.15Age !0.02!(0.01)* 0.004 0.05 !0.01!(0.01) 60.02 0.03 !0.01!(0.01) 60.01 0.03Gender !0.08!(0.03)** 0.03 0.14 !0.17!(0.04)*** 0.10 0.23 !0.17!(0.03)*** 0.11 0.23SBNR*Raised!SBNR !0.16!(0.10) 60.03 0.35 60.11!(0.13) 60.37 0.14 !0.07!(0.11) 60.14 0.28Rel.*Raised!SBNR 60.07!(0.14) 60.36 0.22 !0.08!(0.19) 60.30 0.46 60.08!(0.17) 60.41 0.24SBNR*Raised!Rel. !0.47!(0.07)*** 0.33 0.62 !0.11!(0.09) 60.08 0.30 !0.17!(0.08)* 0.01 0.33Rel*Raised!Rel. !0.16!(0.09)† 60.01 0.33 !0.03!(0.12) 60.20 0.26 !0.16!(0.10) 60.04 0.36Adj.!R2!=!0.54,! Adj.!R2!=!0.20,! Adj.!R2!=!0.41,!F(20,!2918)!=!171.10*** F(20,!2851)!=!35.85*** F(20,!2856)!=!102.00***Note:!†p<0.10,!*p<0.05,!**p<0.01,!***p<0.001.!Additional!control!variables!included:!education!and!income.!Interactions/by/groupInteractions/by/countryGod Paranormal Anti/Science! 120!overcompensating!for!past!belief!by!rejecting!these!beliefs!strongly,!or!only!those!who!are!least!prone!to!belief!resist!the!cultural!pressures!of!their!upbringing!and!become!nonJreligious.!On!the!other!side,!participants!who!were!raised!religiously!but!are!now!SBNR!look!more!like!the!currently!religious.!These!participants!hold!stronger!beliefs!in!God!and!are!more!antiJscience!then!the!SBNR!who!where!not!raised!religiously.!This!suggest!that!being!raised!in!a!religious!household!does!have!some!lasting!impact!on!belief,!even!for!those!who!no!longer!prescribe!to!the!practices!of!their!religion.!!When!I!looked!at!country!level!differences!I!find!further!support!for!this!idea.!In!Analysis!2!I!found!that!Religious!people!in!the!American!sample!were!less!likely!to!hold!paranormal!beliefs!than!the!SBNR!participants.!This!was!not!the!case!in!either!the!Czech!Republic!or!Slovakia.!This!suggests!that!there!is!a!separation!of!these!types!of!beliefs!in!the!USA!that!is!not!present!in!the!other!samples.!If!we!expect!that!the!beliefs!one!learns!in!childhood!leave!an!imprint!on!adult!beliefs,!then!we!should!expect!people!who!are!currently!SBNR!but!were!raised!religiously!should!have!less!paranormal!beliefs!than!those!were!not!raised!religiously.!Further,!this!effect!should!only!be!present!in!the!USA.!This!is!exactly!what!I!found;!among!the!SBNR,!those!raised!religiously!in!the!USA!hold!lower!paranormal!beliefs!than!other!participants.!!These!analyses!lend!support!to!the!idea!that!even!if!the!cognitive!processes!that!increase!the!likelihood!of!participant!holding!beliefs!across!all!samples,!the!content!of!those!beliefs!is!something!people!learn!and!much!of!this!learning!takes!place!in!childhood.!Since!all!three!of!these!countries!are!Western!and!Christian,!this!! 121!can!be!considered!a!minimal!case.!Even!in!very!similar!cultures,!cultural!differences!have!a!significant!impact.!!4.6 Analysis,4:,Cognitive,Biases,and,Conversion,,In!the!previous!two!sections,!I!have!looked!at!how!cognitive!biases!relate!to!different!belief!groups!and!how!upbringing!impacts!current!beliefs.!In!my!final!analysis,!I!have!brought!these!two!together!and!look!at!how!cognitive!biases!predict!conversion!from!one!group!to!another.!If!the!effects!of!mentalizing,!dualism!and!anthropomorphism!are!related!to!supernatural!beliefs,!then!people!lower!in!these!traits!should!be!more!likely!to!become!nonJreligious,!even!if!raised!religiously.!Conversely,!those!high!in!these!traits!should!adopt!supernatural!beliefs!even!if!they!are!raised!nonJreligiously.!4.6.1 Results,!! A!majority!of!participants,!across!all!three!samples,!have!remained!in!the!same!religious,!SBNR,!or!nonJreligious!category!they!were!born!into!(see!Table!4.6).!Still,!far!more!people!converted!to!being!SBNR!(20.54%)!then!either!religious!(4.63%)!or!nonJreligious!(12.54%).!Conversion!was!the!most!common!in!the!USA!and!the!least!common!in!Slovakia.!!!!!!! 122!Table&4.6:&Rates&of&conversion,&as&percentage&of&sample&total&&and&of&those&raised&in&each&category&& Czech, Slovakia, USA, ALL,& %,total, %,raised, %,total, %,raised, %,total, %,raised, %,total, %,raised,Non,converts, 67.40%& & 75.02%& & 45.75%& & 62.69%& &Not,Rel.,to,Rel., 3.98%& 6.41%& 2.49%& 15.43%& 3.06%& 11.83%& 3.18%& 9.16%&Not,Rel.,to,SB., 17.50%& 28.20%& 4.38%& 27.16%& 6.72%& 25.95%& 9.53%& 27.48%&Rel.,to,Not,Rel., 2.68%& 13.85%& 4.98%& 6.89%& 21.54%& 35.55%& 9.76%& 19.23%&Rel.,to,SB., 4.57%& 23.59%& 9.85%& 12.63%& 18.58%& 30.67%& 11.02%& 21.71%&SB.,to,Not,Rel., 2.98%& 16.76%& 2.19%& 13.58%& 3.16%& 23.70%& 2.78%& 17.64%&SB.,to,Rel., 1.29%& 7.26%& 1.79%& 11.11%& 1.28%& 9.63%& 1.46%& 9.24%&Total,converts:&to&SBNR&=&20.54%;&to&Religious&=&4.63%;&to&Not&Religious:&12.5%&! To!look!at!the!effects!of!cognitive!biases!on!conversion,!I!split!our!data!into!three!groups!based!on!how!participants!were!raised!(i.e.!raised!religious,!SBNR!or!nonJreligious).!In!each!of!these!samples,!I!used!a!multinomial!logistic!regression!to!predict!the!movement!from!one!group!to!another!based!on!the!cognitive!biases!(Table!4.7).!For!participants!who!were!raised!religiously!(N=1534),!lower!scores!on!all!the!cognitive!biases,!higher!analytic!thinking,!and!being!male!predict!being!nonJreligious!as!an!adult!across!all!three!samples.!Lower!dualism!scores!and!higher!analytic!thinking!predict!being!a!SBNR!adult.!Both!conversion!groups!show!a!significant!effect!of!age.!Those!who!become!SBNR!are!older!than!those!who!remain!religious,!and!those!who!become!nonJreligious!are!younger.!!For!the!participants!raised!in!nonJreligious!households!(N=1048),!higher!scores!on!mentalizing!and!dualism!predict!being!currently!religious!adults.!Higher!scores!on!mentalizing,!dualism!and!anthropomorphism,!as!well!as!being!female,!predict!being!a!SBNR!adult.!A!higher!proportion!of!those!raised!as!nonJreligious!! 123!convert!to!SBNR!in!the!Czech!Republic!than!those!in!the!USA.!This!same!relationship!is!marginal!in!Slovakia.!Finally,!there!are!only!a!couple!of!significant!effects!for!those!raised!SBNR!(N=429).!Those!who!have!converted!to!religion!are!younger!on!average,!and!those!who!score!lower!on!dualism!are!more!likely!to!be!nonJreligious.!Since!only!a!few!participants!in!any!of!our!samples!were!raised!SBNR,!and!fewer!still!converted!away!from!being!SBNR,!these!findings!should!be!interpreted!with!some!caution.!!! 124!!B(SE) Odds Lower Upper B(SE) Odds Lower Upper B(SE) Odds Lower UpperIntercept 40.998(0.31)** 0.63 0.46 0.88 41.818(0.32)*** 0.16 0.09 0.31 444 444 444 444EQ 80.158(0.09)† 1.15 0.99 1.35 80.438(0.09)** 1.54 1.29 1.85 444 444 444 444Dualism 40.188(0.08)* 0.82 0.71 0.96 80.328(0.08)*** 1.38 1.17 1.62 444 444 444 444Anthro 80.028(0.08) 0.99 0.86 1.15 80.168(0.08)* 1.18 1.01 1.37 444 444 444 444Analytic 80.208(0.07)** 1.19 0.86 1.37 80.098(0.08) 1.09 0.93 1.29 444 444 444 444Age 80.148(0.77)* 1.13 1.02 1.26 80.038(0.06) 1.03 0.91 1.16 444 444 444 444Sex 40.038(0.15) 1.03 0.77 1.37 80.568(0.17)*** 1.75 1.26 2.43 444 444 444 444Czech 40.708(0.26)** 0.37 0.22 0.63 80.538(0.24)* 1.69 1.06 2.61 444 444 444 444Slovakia 41.558(022)*** 0.18 0.12 0.28 80.508(0.30)† 1.65 0.91 3.00 444 444 444 444Intercept 444 444 444 444 42.798(0.50)*** 0.06 0.02 0.16 40.298(0.77) 0.75 0.16 3.39EQ 444 444 444 444 80.488(0.13)*** 1.62 1.25 2.10 80.168(0.19) 1.17 0.81 1.68Dualism 444 444 444 444 80.608(0.14)*** 1.82 1.39 2.38 80.068(0.20) 1.06 0.72 1.56Anthro 444 444 444 444 40.048(0.12) 0.95 0.75 1.22 80.108(0.17) 1.11 0.80 1.53Analytic 444 444 444 444 40.178(0.13) 0.84 0.64 1.10 80.278(0.18) 1.32 0.92 1.87Age 444 444 444 444 80.108(0.19) 1.10 0.91 1.34 40.508(0.16)** 0.60 0.44 0.83Sex 444 444 444 444 80.438(0.26)† 1.54 0.93 2.55 40.278(0.37) 0.76 0.37 1.58Czech 444 444 444 444 40.308(0.36) 0.73 0.36 1.50 80.148(0.55) 1.15 0.39 3.41Slovakia 444 444 444 444 80.668(0.40)† 1.69 0.88 2.71 81.448(0.56)** 4.22 1.42 12.54Intercept 80.848(0.34)* 2.31 1.18 4.49 444 444 444 444 80.108(0.56) 1.10 0.35 3.41EQ 40.058(0.09) 0.94 0.79 1.14 444 444 444 444 40.178(0.16) 0.85 0.62 1.15Dualism 40.868(0.09)*** 0.42 0.35 0.51 444 444 444 444 40.528(0.14)*** 0.59 0.45 0.78Anthro 40.278(0.11)** 0.76 0.62 0.93 444 444 444 444 40.068(0.14) 0.94 0.71 1.24Analytic 80.258(0.08)** 1.29 1.10 1.51 444 444 444 444 40.068(0.15) 0.94 0.70 1.25Age 40.228(0.07)** 0.80 0.69 0.92 444 444 444 444 40.298(0.11)* 0.75 0.60 0.94Sex 40.428(0.15)* 0.66 0.47 0.93 444 444 444 444 40.428(0.29) 0.66 0.38 1.15Czech 41.258(0.31)*** 0.29 0.16 0.53 444 444 444 444 40.208(0.41) 0.82 0.37 1.82Slovakia 42.358(0.25)*** 0.10 0.06 0.17 444 444 444 444 80.168(0.45) 1.18 0.49 2.84Note:8†p<0.10,8*p<0.05,8**p<0.01,8***p<0.001.8Additional8control8variables8included:8education8and8income.8SBNRReligiousNot/ReligiousRaised//SBNR 95%8CI8Odds8Raised/Religious95%8CI8Odds8 Raised//Non3religious95%8CI8Odds8Table&4.7:&Multinomial&logistic&regression&predicting&conversion&from&cognitive&biases.&Each&model&predicts&conversion&in&a&different&sample&(participants&raised&religiously,&participants&raised&not&religiously,&and&participants&raised&SBNR),&and&uses&people&who&did&not&convert&as&the&comparison&(i.e.&in&the&sample&of&people&raised&religiously,&those&who&are&still&religious&as&adults&are&the&comparison&category).&Each&section&represents&a&different&conversion&group&(SBNR,&religious,&or&nonEreligious).&! 125!4.6.2 Discussion,! A!larger!percentage!of!my!sample!has!converted!to!SBNR!then!any!other!group.!This!supports!the!idea!that!the!SBNR!are!a!growing!demographic!group.!Interestingly,!across!all!three!countries!the!largest!proportion!of!converts!was!coming!from!the!ranks!of!the!nonCreligious.!If!becoming!SBNR!was!just!a!step!towards!becoming!nonCreligious,!then!we!should!not!see!this!trend.!For!SBNR!to!be!a!steppingCstone,!people!should!be!converting!from!religious!to!SBNR!and!from!SBNR!to!nonCreligious,!rather!than!converting!from!nonCreligious!to!SBNR.!Previous!work!has!suggested!that!the!one!personality!trait!that!differentiates!the!spiritual!from!the!religious!is!openness!to!experience!(Saucier!&!Skrzypińska,!2006).!Something!about!being!SBNR!may!suggest!an!innovative,!individualistic,!or!adventurous!nature,!and!there!may!be!some!constitution!of!traits!that!causes!people!to!innovate!in!terms!of!supernatural!traditions.!This!is!an!idea!worthy!of!further!research.!!These!analyses!support!our!more!general!hypothesis!that!there!are!core!cognitive!biases!that!predispose!people!towards!supernatural!belief.!Participants!who!were!raised!religiously!who!were!also!low!in!dualism!and!anthropomorphism!and!high!in!analytic!thinking!were!more!likely!to!have!left!their!religion!as!adults.!This!same!effect!is!found!in!the!opposite!direction!(those!raised!nonCreligious!becoming!religious),!but!this!time!it!is!dualism!and!mentalizing!that!is!doing!the!work.!Though!no!causal!direction!can!be!derived!from!this!analysis,!the!pattern!of!relationships!is!consistent!with!theoretical!perspectives.!!! 126!There!are!several!limitations!in!interpreting!this!data.!The!first!is!inherent!in!using!current!cognitive!states!to!predict!past!actions.!It!is!entirely!possible!that!people!are!changing!their!cognitive!profiles!to!reflect!their!current!belief!states.!Though!much!of!the!evidence!presented!here!and!in!the!previous!chapters!suggests!a!causal!direction!from!cognitive!biases!to!supernatural!beliefs,!no!such!causal!pattern!can!be!conclusively!derived!from!correlational!data.!What!I!can!firmly!say!is!cognitive!profiles!predispose,!in!measurable!and!predictable!ways,!an!individual!to!categories!of!belief—this!is!true!regardless!of!their!upbringing.!4.7 General,Discussion,,The$Psychological$Underpinnings$of$SBNR$The!proportion!of!people!in!North!America!who!identify!as!SBNR!is!growing;!they!are!becoming!an!increasingly!important!subset!of!American!believers!(Bender,!2010;!2012;!Fuller,!2001;!Roof,!1999).!There!are!similar!trends!in!other!secularizing!societies!such!as!Canada!and!Europe.!As!a!growing!demographic!and!social!phenomenon!worldwide,!the!SBNR!are!poorly!understood,!yet!the!impact!of!this!group!is!being!felt!in!many!aspects!of!social!and!political!life.!Additionally,!this!phenomenon!offers!an!opportunity!to!investigate!the!cognitive!origins!and!persistent!tendencies!towards!supernatural!belief!beyond!what!we!see!in!traditional!religious!believers.!In!this!chapter!I!have!outlined!several!lines!of!evidence!supporting!the!idea!that!supernatural!belief!is,!in!part,!driven!by!cognitive!tendencies!rooted!in!mentalizing!(Willard!&!Norenzayan,!2013).!SBNR!participants!look!similar!to!religious!participants!on!these!cognitive!tendencies,!but!differ!significantly!from!the!! 127!nonCreligious!in!other!ways.!Though!SBNR!participants!see!themselves!to!be!‘nonCreligious’,!they!endorse!alternative!supernatural!beliefs!that!are!also!driven!by!the!same!cognitive!biases!that!underpin!more!conventional!religious!beliefs.!They!have!rejected!organized!religion,!but!have!not!shaken!the!intuitions!that!anchor!supernatural!beliefs.!At!the!same!time,!they!do!not!look!exactly!like!their!religious!counterparts.!They!are!lower!in!dualism!and!higher!in!mentalizing.!Though!it!is!unclear!what!the!basis!of!these!differences!are,!or!what!the!causal!relationship!is,!they!do!tell!us!that!the!SBNR!are!a!psychologically!identifiable!group,!worthy!of!further!research.!!The!consistency!of!these!relationships!across!three!different!samples!from!three!different!countries!suggests!these!are!stable!differences,!at!least!in!the!Western!world.!Further!research!into!the!SBNR!would!benefit!from!a!broader!cultural!sample!and!a!comparison!to!nonCworld!religions!(religions!other!than!Buddhism,!Hinduism,!and!the!Abrahamic!traditions)!and!smaller!tribal!traditions.!The!world!religions!have!developed!sets!of!cultural!beliefs!and!practices!which!help!to!alleviate!some!of!the!problems!of!living!in!large!groups!(Norenzayan,!2013;!Norenzayan!et!al.,!2015).!They!may!have!moved!beyond!the!intuitive!basis!of!supernatural!belief!in!ways!that!smaller!religious!traditions!have!not.!!The!SBNR!as!a!group!are!important!to!our!understanding!of!religion!and!supernatural!belief!because!they!allow!for!some!separation!between!religious!and!nonCreligious!supernatural!belief.!Though!the!cognition!may!be!the!same,!the!content!is!clearly!quite!different.!This!difference!also!allows!us!to!infer!that!some!belief!patterns!are!established!in!childhood.!The!subtle!cultural!differences!that!! 128!exist!in!Western!ChristianCbased!traditions!are!seen!in!adults,!even!when!those!adults!have!changed!from!one!group!to!another.!Echoes!of!childhood!exposure!to!certain!types!of!beliefs!remain.!!The!ability!of!cognitive!biases!to!predict!conversion!is!further!support!for!the!idea!that!these!cognitions!are!a!foundation!of!religious!belief.!When!an!individuals!intuitions!clash!with!their!upbringing!are!more!likely!to!leave!their!childhood!group!for!another!group.!!Overall,!the!findings!on!conversion!suggest!that!the!SBNR!in!all!three!of!these!societies!is!growing!and!the!religious!are!declining.!More!people!are!converting!to!the!SBNR!then!are!leaving!and!more!people!are!converting!away!from!religious!then!are!converting!too.!This!would!need!to!account!for!relative!birth!rate!before!population!level!claims!can!be!made,!but!it!does!suggest!an!interesting!transition!in!supernatural!belief!in!the!West.!More!and!more!people!are!embracing!belief!without!embracing!religion.!! !! 129!Chapter,5: Conclusion,! Throughout!this!dissertation,!I!have!discussed!the!role!of!ToMCbased!cognitive!biases!as!a!foundation!of!supernatural!belief.!I!have!argued!that!individual!differences!in!these!tendencies!lead!to!individual!differences!in!the!susceptibility!to!supernatural!beliefs:!People!who!tend!towards!the!use!of!mental!state!reasoning!to!explain!nonCmentalistic!phenomenon!also!tend!to!endorse!the!supernatural.!I!have!also!argued!that!this!phenomenon!is!specific!to!supernatural!belief!and!does!not!necessarily!extend!to!the!adoption!of!religious!practices.!Supernatural!beliefs!are!separable!from!the!rituals!that!often!surround!them,!and!the!psychological!foundations!for!these!two!categories!are!very!different.!!Religious!rituals!are!culturally!based!and!unlike!anthropomorphism,!dualism,!and!teleology,!often!serve!a!clear!societal!function.!There!is!currently!no!evidence!that!anthropomorphism,!dualism,!or!teleology!have!any!prosocial!function!in!and!of!themselves.!The!beliefs!they!promote!may,!through!the!process!of!cultural!evolution,!evolve!into!beliefs!that!help!enforce!normative!behaviors!(Norenzayan,!2013;!Norenzayan!et!al.,!2015),!but!it!is!not!clear!that!this!function!is!inherent!in!intuitions!themselves.!They!simple!increase!the!probability!that!individuals!will!hold!supernatural!belief.!They!do!not!determine!how!those!beliefs!are!used!within!a!cultural!context.!Religious!rituals!can!serve!as!a!way!to!promote!group!bonds!and!loyalty!(e.g.!Sosis!&!Alcorta,!2003;!Whitehouse,!2004),!promote!prosocial!behavior!(e.g.!Wiltermuth!&!Heath,!2009;!Xygalatas!et!al.,!2013),!and!transmit!belief!to!new!members!of!a!society!(e.g.!Henrich,!2009;!Lanman,!2012).!These!functions!have!! 130!evolved!within!cultures!to!serve!these!social!purposes!(Gervais!et!al.,!2011;!Norenzayan,!2013;!Norenzayan!et!al.,!2015).!The!group!level!benefits!of!religion!come!out!of!the!cultural!evolution!of!complex!religious!traditions,!not!the!tendency!to!adopt!supernatural!belief.!!I!have!also!distinguished!between!supernatural!beliefs!that!are!part!of!a!specific!religious!tradition!and!those!that!are!not.!Throughout!this!dissertation,!I!often!have!made!an!effort,!for!the!sake!of!clarity,!to!distinguish!between!cognitively!based!beliefs!and!culturally!based!belief.!More!accurately,!the!relationship!between!any!specific!belief!and!its!cultural!setting!should!be!thought!of!as!a!sliding!scale.!Within!any!culture,!certain!beliefs!are!considered!more!important,!or!less!optional,!then!others.!These!beliefs!are!obligatory,!and!we!should!expect!them!to!be!highly!culturally!determined.!People!who!are!part!of!a!strongly!religious!culture!will!be!likely!to!adopt!the!supernatural!beliefs!of!that!culture!regardless!of!how!intuitive!they!find!those!beliefs.!Supernatural!beliefs!that!an!individual!can!adopt!or!not!adopt!with!little!cultural!consequence!will!be!more!determined!by!an!individual’s!intuitions.!!At!the!same!time,!just!because!some!portion!of!the!population!is!prone!to!supernatural!thinking!and!supernatural!beliefs,!this!does!not!mean!they!will!adopt!any!specific!set!of!religious!beliefs.!Religious!traditions!exist!because!they!have!been!supported!and!reinforced!by!cultural!learning.!Cognitive!biases!for!belief!will!make!it!more!likely!that!certain!categories!of!belief,!such!as!the!belief!in!supernatural!agents,!exist!across!cultures,!but!without!cultural!bolstering,!these!beliefs!will!be!more!akin!to!superstitions!and!ghost!stories!than!a!complex!tradition!like!! 131!Christianity.!How!one!decides!to!fit!‘religion’!as!a!term!into!this!framework!is!not!important.!If!a!person!wants!to!call!all!supernatural!belief!religious,!that!is!fine,!but!the!division!between!beliefs!that!are!culturally!enforced!and!those!that!are!not!(or!less!so)!is!worthy!of!our!recognition!and!consideration.!In!the!introduction!to!this!dissertation!I!suggested!that!these!types!of!largeCscale!correlational!studies!can!help!us!better!to!understand!these!relationships!and!this,!in!turn,!can!help!us!create!better!theories.!In!what!follows,!I!will!briefly!summarize!each!of!the!concepts!I!have!discussed!above,!expanding!on!the!implications!including!possible!future!avenues!of!research.!I!begin!with!the!cognitive!biases:!!5.1 Mentalizing,,The!idea!that!mentalizing!is!an!underlying!component!to!understanding!Gods!and!ghosts!is!a!strong!prediction.!Understanding!and!reasoning!about!the!minds!of!supernatural!agents!necessarily!requires!the!ability!to!understand!and!reason!about!minds.!Still,!this!relationship!may!not!be!as!straightforward!as!we!think.!The!path!models!presented!in!chapters!2!and!3!show!that!the!relationship!between!mentalizing!and!supernatural!belief!is!mediated!by!the!other!cognitive!biases.!The!ability!to!think!about!minds!is!not!directly!related!to!supernatural!belief;!rather,!it!is!the!tendency!to!extend!mental!state!reasoning!above!and!beyond!the!ability!to!think!about!other!people’s!minds!that!leads!to!supernatural!belief.!!!Despite!this!theoretical!link,!it!is!worth!noting!that!the!relationship!between!mentalizing!and!the!other!biases!is!weak!across!all!models.!One!possible!reason!for!this!comes!from!how!mentalizing!is!measured!across!these!experiments.!The!! 132!empathy!quotient!(BaronCCohen!&!Wheelwright,!2004)!and!other!adult!measures!of!ToM!measure!the!accuracy,!or!perceived!accuracy,!with!which!people!use!mental!state!reasoning!to!understand!other!people’s!minds.!It!is!not!clear!that!this!is!the!variable!of!interest!when!seeking!an!explanation!for!supernatural!thought.!More!likely!candidates!are!the!frequency!with!which!people!use!mental!state!reasoning!and!the!tendency!to!use!it!as!an!explanation!for!nonCmentalistic!phenomena.!!Gods!and!ghosts!are!not!like!people.!They!don’t!have!facial!features!or!body!language!from!which!a!person!can!accurately!derive!their!mental!states.!BaronCCohen’s!foundations!of!gazeCfollowing!and!shared!attention!do!not!apply!here,!nor!does!the!ability!to!read!facial!expressions!or!body!language!(see!BaronCCohen,!1995).!Gods!and!ghosts!are!not!physically!present!in!the!world.!When!people!are!inferring!God’s!mental!states!they!are!not!using!cues!from!a!tangible!agent.!They!are!extrapolating!mentalistic!explanations!from!events!or!objects!in!the!world,!or!perhaps!from!their!own!state!of!mind.!I!will!talk!more!about!this!below.!!Though!mentalizing!may!be!only!indirectly!related!to!belief,!it!may!still!predict!whether!one!is!a!certain!type!of!believer.!In!Chapter!4,!I!found!a!relationship!between!mentalizing!and!being!spiritual!but!not!religious!(SBNR).!High!ratings!of!mentalizing!may!have!something!to!do!with!why!people!choose!the!SBNR!path!in!the!first!place,!rather!than!be!entirely!about!the!beliefs!they!hold.!Though!Chapter!4!shows!that!the!SBNR!hold!similar!intuitions!towards!supernatural!belief!as!the!religious,!the!question!of!what!makes!people!choose!to!be!SBNR!rather!that!maintaining!a!more!traditionally!religious!set!of!beliefs!remains!largely!unanswered!(Bender,!2012;!Saucier!&!Skrzypińska,!2006).!Until!researchers!can!adequately!! 133!answer!this!question,!some!of!these!relationships!and!how!they!relate!to!this!additionally!category!of!supernatural!believers!will!remain!a!mystery.!!5.2 Anthropomorphism,Of!all!the!cognitive!biases!I!talked!about!in!this!dissertation,!anthropomorphism!is!the!most!consistently!theoretically!related!to!supernatural!and!religious!belief!(Barrett,!2004;!Feuerbach,!1957;!Guthrie,!1993;!Hume,!1981).!Anthropomorphism,!as!it!was!measured!in!this!dissertation,!is!the!propensity!to!use!mental!state!reasoning!to!understand!nonhuman!objects!and!entities.!This!variable!may!capture!the!frequency!and!tendency!of!mental!state!reasoning!more!adequately!than!the!mentalizing!measure!I!used.!Because!of!this,!anthropomorphism!should!be—at!least!theoretically—more!strongly!related!to!reasoning!about!the!mental!states!of!supernatural!agents.!!! The!empirical!evidence!paints!a!more!complex!picture.!Anthropomorphism,!across!all!samples!and!countries,!is!reliably!related!to!paranormal!beliefs,!but!not!to!belief!in!God!(chapters!2!and!3).!There!are!a!few!things!to!note!here.!The!first!and!most!important,!all!theses!samples!come!from!predominantly!Christian!or!historically!Christian!societies.!This!lack!of!relationship!to!belief!in!God!may!be!specific!to!Christianity.!This!perspective!is!supported!by!findings!from!the!Czech!sample!in!Chapter!3.!In!the!Czech!sample,!I!did!find!a!modest!relationship!between!anthropomorphism!and!the!belief!in!God,!but!this!relationship!is!entirely!driven!by!the!sizable!nonCreligious!population.!Those!who!did!not!consider!themselves!religious!but!were!high!in!anthropomorphism!were!more!likely!than!those!low!in!anthropomorphism!to!believe!in!God.!Those!who!were!religious!replicated!the!! 134!findings!of!the!American,!Canadian!and!Slovak!samples,!showing!no!relationship!at!all!between!anthropomorphism!and!belief!in!God.!This!suggests!that!the!relationship!(or!lack!of)!is!not!about!belief!in!God!itself,!but!belief!in!God!for!members!of!a!predominantly!Christian!society.!!I!have!previously!explained!this!relationship!as!being,!at!least!potentially,!due!to!Christianity’s!explicit!teaching!against!imbuing!everything!with!a!mind!of!its!own.!Another!related!explanation!is!that!having!a!single!God!whose!mind!is!responsible!for!everything!that!happens!in!the!world!removes!the!need!to!anthropomorphize!anything!else.!Work!by!Waytz!et!al.!(2010c)!suggests!that!people!are!motivated!to!anthropomorphize!when!they!cannot!explain!an!event!with!other!types!of!causal!reasoning.!People!imbue!objects,!such!as!computers!and!cars,!with!mental!sates!when!they!perform!erratically!and!unpredictably!(Epley!et!al.,!2008b).!We’re!all!familiar!with!this!idea:!my!computer!crashed!because!it!has!a!mind!of!its!own;!my!car!has!broken!down!because!I!called!it!bad!names!when!it!stalled!at!the!traffic!light.!!All!this!comes!from!a!more!general!need!to!have!some!sort!of!understanding!and!control!over!the!world!(Kay,!Whitson,!Gaucher,!&!Galinsky,!2009;!White,!1959).!Agency!serves!as!an!ultimate!causal!force!because!it!is!internally!motivated!and!something!we!all!intuitively!understand.!If!your!computer!crashes!because!it!wants!to!crash,!then!you!have!an!understandable!explanation!that!guides!both!your!current!and!future!behavior!(“I’ll!just!leave!it!alone!for!a!bit.!It!just!needs!some!space!right!now,!and!I!should!really!be!nicer!to!it!in!the!future”).!This!type!of!explanation!give!us!a!sense!of!effectiveness!in!and!control!over!the!world!(Epley,!2014).!There!is!! 135!no!need!to!pursue!the!sometimes!impossibly!complex!set!of!mechanical!and!computational!causes!that!would!be!otherwise!be!needed!to!explain!why!your!computer!is!malfunctioning!or!your!car!won’t!run.!!An!omnipotent!God!offers!an!ultimate!agentic!cause!for!the!things!and!events!that!are!important!in!your!life.!It!may!no!longer!be!necessary!to!give!minds!to!nature,!objects,!or!machines!when!belief!in!God!makes!just!such!a!causal!explanation!cognitively!available!(see!Kay!et!al.,!2008).!!As!with!all!of!these!biases,!to!really!understand!the!relationship!between!anthropomorphism!and!supernatural!beliefs,!it!is!necessary!to!look!at!a!wider!range!of!religions!and!beliefs.!It!is!quite!likely!that!anthropomorphism!would!be!as!highly!related!to!other!nonCChristian!religious!beliefs!as!it!is!to!paranormal!beliefs.!If!other!large!religions,!such!as!Hinduism!and!Buddhism,!were!to!show!a!strong!relationship!to!anthropomorphism,!we!could!conclude!that!this!null!relationship!is!specific!to!Christianity.!Moreover,!looking!at!additional!religious!groups!may!also!allow!us!to!tease!out!the!role!that!causal!reasoning!plays!in!this!relationship.!Both!Hinduism!and!Buddhism!use!the!nonCagentic!system!of!karma!as!a!type!of!causal!explanation,!but!do!not!explicitly!forbid!imbuing!things!in!the!world!with!minds.!This!offers!a!possibility!to!separate!these!two!explanations.!If!anthropomorphism!is!entirely!about!explanations,!then!strong!karma!beliefs!should!make!anthropomorphism!less!appealing!in!the!same!way!an!omnipotent!God!does.!On!the!other!hand,!if!the!lack!of!relationship!is!about!explicit!teaching!against!anthropomorphism,!anthropomorphism!should!still!be!quite!prevalent!among!those!who!believe!in!karma.!!! 136!5.3 Dualism,The!strongest!relationship!I!found!between!any!of!the!cognitive!biases!and!religious!belief!(or,!more!specifically,!the!belief!in!God)!was!with!dualism.!Dualism,!like!anthropomorphism,!plays!a!clear!theoretic!role!in!supernatural!belief.!The!concept!that!the!mind!is!something!separate!from,!and!not!reducible!to,!the!body!is!necessary!for!the!belief!that!minds!can!exist!separately!from!physical!forms!in!ghosts!and!gods!(Bloom,!2005;!2007).!Unlike!anthropomorphism,!dualism!is!strongly!related!to!the!belief!in!God.!Again,!I!only!looked!at!this!among!Christian!believers,!but!I!suspect!that!further!research!would!show!that!this!relationship!extends!to!other!religions!as!well.!A!growing!body!of!research!shows!dualism!to!be!a!basic!intuition!separate!from!any!specific!set!of!beliefs.!Small!children!do!it!readily!(Chudek!et!al.,!2013),!and!it!is!seen!in!ancient!China!which!not!yet!had!contact!with!Western!thought!(Slingerland!&!Chudek,!2011).!!Still,!the!strength!of!the!relationship!between!dualism!and!belief!in!God!may!have!some!roots!in!Christian!belief.!If!anything,!dualism’s!relationship!with!belief!in!God!is!stronger!then!it’s!relationship!with!paranormal!belief.!This!is!counter!to!the!hypothesis!that!cognitive!biases!should!be!more!strongly!related!to!nonCreligious!beliefs!than!they!are!to!supernatural!ones.!Christianity!may!be!promoting!dualistic!thinking.!One!way!this!could!be!happening!is!through!soul!beliefs.!This!idea,!that!there!is!a!part!of!us,!a!soul,!that!exists!separately!from!our!material!bodies,!is!grounded!in!dualistic!thinking!(Preston,!Ritter,!&!Hepler,!2013).!Since!soul!beliefs!are!an!important!fixture!in!Christianity,!it!makes!sense!that!Christianity!would!promote!dualistic!thinking.!Christianity’s!constant!reminders!that!there!is!a!nonC! 137!physical!part!of!us!that!will!live!forever!should!prime!believers!with!steady!reminders!of!a!dualistic!worldview.!!Soul!beliefs!are!hardly!unique!to!Christianity.!Still,!the!focus!of!Christian!belief!on!life!in!the!next!world!rather!then!this!one!might!make!Christians!rely!more!on!dualistic!thought!than!other!supernatural!believers.!Again,!this!is!a!testable!hypothesis.!If!this!is!the!case,!variation!in!how!much!different!religions!emphasize!a!soul!should!correspond!with!differences!in!the!strength!of!dualistic!intuitions.!This!is!not!to!suggest!that!being!Christian!or!believing!in!souls!causes!dualism!and!not!the!other!way!around.!I!would!suggest,!instead,!that!this!is!a!feedback!relationship.!Individuals!have!intuitions!towards!mindCbody!dualism!and!this!causes!them!to!hold!certain!types!of!supernatural!beliefs!more!readily.!Once!those!beliefs!have!coalesced!across!a!whole!population!and!become!a!religious!tradition,!we!should!expect!that!beliefs!and!practices!promoted!by!that!tradition!feedback!on!the!underlying!thought!patterns!of!the!people!who!hold!those!beliefs.!It!is!clear!that!dualism!cannot!come!entirely!from!Christian!beliefs,!as!it!is!seen!in!entirely!nonCChristian!places,!but!that!does!not!mean!that!the!content!of!specific!beliefs!in!Christianity!will!have!no!impact!on!the!relationship!between!dualistic!thought!and!supernatural!beliefs.!!5.4 Teleology,Teleology!was!the!weakest!of!the!cognitive!biases!I!explored!in!this!dissertation.!As!I!mentioned!in!Chapter!2,!this!may!have!more!to!do!with!how!I!measured!it!than!the!actual!relationship!of!teleology!and!supernatural!belief!as!constructs.!Theoretically,!the!link!seems!quite!sound.!The!belief!that!everything!has!! 138!a!purposes!leads!people!to!see!the!world!as!full!of!intentional!actions!and!increases!the!likelihood!that!people!will!believe!in!a!designer!behind!a!world!full!of!designs!(Kelemen,!2004).!Further,!other!empirical!work!has!found!links!between!teleology!and!supernatural!beliefs!(Banerjee!&!Bloom,!2014b;!2014a;!Kelemen!&!DiYanni,!2005).!!Another!possible!problem!with!teleology!and!how!it!has!been!examined!in!this!dissertation!is!the!problem!of!whether!or!not!teleology!requires!mental!state!reasoning.!Teleology!is!based!in!artifact!cognition!(Casler!&!Kelemen,!2007;!Kelemen,!1999).!People!extend!their!understanding!of!artifacts!as!being!made!with!an!intended!purpose!to!objects!in!the!natural!world.!This!idea—that!this!purposeCbased!reasoning!comes!out!of!the!ability!to!infer!the!intended!use!of!objects—!clearly!requires!the!ability!to!identify!goals!and!intentions,!but!not!necessarily!the!ability!to!reason!about!mental!states.!These!are!not!the!same!thing.!Identifying!something!as!having!goals!is!the!process!of!identifying!agents!and!is!a!quick!reaction!to!even!the!most!basic!stimuli!(see!Heider!&!Simmel,!1944).!The!process!reasoning!about!an!agent’s!(or!nonCagent’s)!mental!states!is!a!much!slower!and!more!effortful!process.!It!is!one!that!requires!the!appropriate!motivation!(Apperly!&!Butterfill,!2009;!Butterfill!&!Apperly,!2011).!!To!better!understand!what!I!mean!by!this,!picture!yourself!on!a!crowded!bus.!There!are!lots!of!people!getting!on!and!off!the!bus.!The!process!of!deciphering!the!basic!goals—such!as!who!want!to!get!on!or!off!the!bus—based!on!movements!is!fairly!immediate!and!effortless.!Now,!imagine!trying!to!decipher!what!each!of!those!people!is!thinking!during!this!process.!Interpreting!each!person’s!mental!states!! 139!beyond!their!immediate!goals!of!getting!on!or!off!the!bus!involves!a!great!deal!more!effort.!This!is!the!difference!between!a!goal!(someone!getting!off!the!bus),!and!a!motivation!(why!are!they!getting!off!the!bus,!what!are!they!thinking).!You!could!try!to!reason!about!the!mental!states—the!motivations!and!the!content!of!a!persons!mind—for!any!person!on!the!bus,!but!chances!are!you!could!not!do!this!for!more!than!a!few!people!at!a!time.!Further,!you!would!be!unlikely!even!to!try!to!decipher!what!someone!is!thinking!unless!a!person!was!behaving!erratically!or!was!somehow!important!to!you!(i.e.!a!friend).!Identifying!the!intention!to!get!off!the!bus!can!be!done!automatically!and!without!effort;!thinking!about!mental!states!behind!those!intentions!is!much!more!arduous!and!often!unnecessary.!All!of!this!tells!us!that!we!can!see!intentions!without!seeing!minds!(e.g.!Csibra,!Gergely,!Biro,!Koós,!&!Brockbank,!1999;!Gergely!&!Csibra,!2003).!It!is!possible!that!we!identify!events!and!objects!in!our!life!as!purposeful!without!having!to!engage!in!the!more!effortful!process!of!mental!state!reasoning.!We!can!even!see!intention!in!events—such!as!paying!for!bad!deeds!of!the!past—without!ever!thinking!about!a!mind!that!arbitrates!these!intentions.!Processes!like!karma!can!be!used!in!the!place!of!an!omnipotent!mind!to!make!sense!of!and!offer!a!sense!that!we!as!individuals!have!some!control!over!the!world!(through!our!deeds).!According!to!this!view,!events,!both!good!and!bad,!are!penance!or!reward!for!past!good!or!bad!deeds!(even!pastClife!deeds).!This!is!not!to!suggest!that!we!never!use!mental!state!reasoning!to!decipher!life!events!or!to!understand!objects!as!purposeful;!rather,!this!relationship!is!not!automatic,!and!probably!only!happens!when!we!are!actually!motivated!to!do!so.!Still,!the!underlying!intuition!that!! 140!everything!is!purposeful!is!always!present!(e.g.!Kelemen!et!al.,!2013;!Lombrozo!et!al.,!2007).!!!A!system!like!karma!is!a!candidate!for!an!entirely!nonCmentalistic!supernatural!belief.!It!is!almost!certainly!based!on!this!intuition!that!things!happen!for!a!reason,!but!it!subverts!the!need!for!elaboration!with!mental!states!because!it!offers!another!type!of!causal!explanation.!This!type!of!nonCmentalistic!supernatural!belief!may!exist!as!an!entire!category!of!supernatural!beliefs!that!I!have!not!yet!touched!on!in!this!dissertation.!I!will!do!so!here,!briefly.!!5.5 Supernatural,Causal,Reasoning,,The!possibility!that!we!can!reason!about!intentions!or!purposes!without!reasoning!about!minds!suggest!that!mentalizing!may!not!have!a!monopoly!on!intuitions!that!lead!to!supernatural!belief;!other!types!of!causal!reasoning!may!also!have!a!role!to!play.!As!I!have!mentioned!previously,!the!use!of!mental!state!reasoning!in!supernatural!belief!is!likely!motivated!by!a!need!to!understand!and!have!some!sort!of!control!over!the!world.!If!this!is!the!underlying!function!of!supernatural!intuitions,!then!nonCmentalistic!forces!could!just!as!easily!underlie!supernatural!beliefs!as!mentalistic!ones,!so!long!as!they!still!give!people!a!sense!of!understanding!and!control.!There!are!plenty!of!examples!of!nonCmentalistic!supernatural!forces,!such!as!karma,!mana!(Keesing,!1984;!MacClancy,!1986),!and!even!luck!(Pritchard!&!Smith,!2004),!that!appear!on!the!surface!to!serve!this!function!without!mental!states.!!We!seem!to!intuitively!believe!that!good!things!happen!to!people!who!do!good!things!and!bad!things!happen!to!people!who!do!bad!things!(Callan,!Ellard,!&!! 141!Nicol,!2006;!Furnham,!2003;!Lerner,!1980),!but!it!is!unclear!why!this!apparently!widespread!belief!exists!in!the!first!place.!In!addition!to!the!teleological!explanation!offered!above,!some!researchers!have!suggested!that!this!belief!is!based!in!innate!beliefs!about!fairness!(Baumard!&!Boyer,!2013;!Baumard!&!Chevallier,!2012).!This!seems!unlikely!because!intuitions!about!what!constitutes!fairness!differ!quite!a!bit!around!the!world!(Henrich!et!al.,!2010a).!It!could!also!be!based!in!something!like!an!intuitive!understanding!of!indirect!reciprocity.!!Indirect!reciprocity!is!the!use!of!reputations!to!decide!who!you!should!trust!(Boyd!&!Richerson,!1988;!Trivers,!1971).!You!are!better!off!trading!with!people!who!have!good!reputations!and!avoiding!those!who!have!bad!reputations.!Reputations!are!based!on!the!distributed!memory!of!the!community!regarding!past!behaviors.!Doing!something!the!community!considers!bad!damages!your!reputation,!which!means!that!the!community!punishes!the!wrongdoer!or!denies!cooperation.!Simply!put,!our!understanding!that!there!are!consequences!to!our!actions!when!dealing!with!other!people!could!extend!to!supernatural!causes.!!This!is!more!clearly!seen!in!witchcraft!beliefs!then!karmic!beliefs,!but!both!may!have!similarly!intuitive!foundations.!Around!the!world,!misfortunes!are!attributed!to!witches,!curses,!or!the!evil!eye.!In!parts!of!South!Africa,!people!believe!that!the!source!of!an!illness!can!be!curses!brought!on!as!retributions!for!past!offences!against!others,!or!making!others!jealous!(see!Legare!&!Gelman,!2008).!Similarly,!in!medieval!England,!not!being!generous!to!a!beggar!could!cause!any!number!of!bad!things!to!happen!if!that!beggar!turned!out!to!be!a!witch!(Thomas,!1970).!Witchcraft!functions!as!a!way!to!make!sense!of!random!misfortune!by!! 142!assigning!retribution!to!the!supernatural.!Importantly,!that!person!does!not!have!to!be!known!in!advance!(see!EvansCPritchard,!1937).!People!speculate!and!search!for!withes!after!the!fact!for!an!explanation!of!their!misfortunes.!!Karmic!beliefs,!on!the!other!hand,!do!not!require!another!person.!They!are!based!entirely!on!the!acts!and!deeds!of!an!individual.!Outcomes!are!an!automatic!response!to!past!actions.!Karma,!like!luck,!is!a!quality!you!have,!not!a!retributive!act!of!another!mind.!Still,!it!seems!to!be!based!on!a!similar!reasoning!system!to!witchcraft!beliefs:!the!wicked!and!the!just!alike!are!given!their!just!deserts.!!Since!so!much!of!the!psychological!and!cognitive!research!on!supernatural!beliefs!has!focused!on!supernatural!agents,!karma!and!witchcraft!beliefs!have!been!largely!left!unexplored.!We!know!very!little!about!them!psychologically.!Considering!that!close!to!1.4!billion!people!belong!to!karmaCbased!religions!and!witchcraft!beliefs!are!prolific!around!the!world,!this!is!a!gap!in!the!research!that!urgently!needs!to!be!filled.!!5.6 The,Cultural,Basis,of,Belief,These!cognitive!biases!provide!at!least!a!partial!answer!to!one!of!the!most!frequently!asked!questions!pertaining!to!religion:!why!is!it!found!everywhere?!A!complete!answer!to!this!question!represents!an!important!piece!of!the!puzzle!that!is!religion!and!supernatural!beliefs,!but!even!a!complete!answer!to!this!particular!question!would!not!solve!the!larger!puzzle!entirely.$Most!of!what!we!think!of!when!we!think!of!religion!is!created!by,!and!spread!through,!culture.!Cognitive!biases!can!only!explain!broad!categories!of!belief,!but!they!cannot!explain!the!specific!content!of!any!belief.!Supernatural!agent!concepts!may!exist!because!of!cognitive!biases,!but!! 143!who!those!agents!are,!what!they!can!do,!and!what!they!care!about!are!culturally!determined!(see!Purzycki!&!Sosis,!2011).!Further,!culture!makes!up!a!vast!majority!of!what!we!see!in!any!type!of!supernatural!beliefs,!not!just!religious!ones.!In!Chapter!3,!I!showed!that!a!sizable!proportion!of!the!variance!in!the!endorsement!of!paranormal!beliefs!could!be!explained!by!cognitive!biases.!This!means!that!why!people!believe!has!a!lot!to!do!with!their!intuitions,!but!this!tendency!to!believe!should!not!be!confused!with!the!content!of!those!beliefs.!The!specifics!of!how!people!express!their!intuitions!remain!contingent!on!the!culture!in!which!they!were!raised.!!!Religions,!as!cultural!traditions,!are!subject!to!the!same!learning!mechanisms!and!selection!forces!as!all!culture.!This!means!they!will!be!transmitted!in!the!same!way!as!clothing!styles,!norms!of!polite!behavior,!or!any!other!part!of!a!culture.!Religion!offers!nothing!unique!in!this!sense.!People!learn!religion!from!those!around!them,!and!like!any!other!part!of!culture,!they!will!be!more!likely!to!adopt!the!religious!beliefs!of!the!majority,!and!even!more!likely!to!adopt!the!beliefs!of!prestigious!people!within!that!majority.!!Even!CREDs!are!not!a!learning!mechanism!unique!to!religion!(Henrich,!2009).!CREDs!make!up!a!general!mechanism!of!cultural!learning,!one!that!helps!to!explain!a!problem!inherent!with!religious!belief:!how!does!one!judge!the!truth!and!importance!of!a!belief!when!you!have!no!objective!way!of!verifying!it?!This!problem!exists!widely!and!is!not!unique!to!the!culture!of!religion;!it!is!prevalent!in!nonCreligious!culture!as!well.!Dietary!restrictions,!any!type!of!medicine,!and!beliefs!about!etiquette!are!only!some!of!the!things!that!fall!into!this!category.!People!adopt!these!beliefs!without!fully!understanding!their!truth!or!utility.!We!prepare!food!in!a!! 144!certain!way!or!avoid!certain!things!at!certain!times!because!we!have!learned!to!do!so!from!others.!The!more!studious!others!around!us!are!about!following!these!practices,!the!more!credible!the!information!becomes.!We!are!more!likely!to!adopt!these!practices!when!they!are!credibly!displayed!by!others.!Behavioral!displays!offer!a!way!of!weeding!out!the!things!that!are!culturally!important!from!those!things!that!are!not.!They!not!only!tell!us!what!to!believe,!but!how!strongly!to!believe!it.!!5.7 Implications,for,the,Cognitive,Science,of,Religion,The!implications!of!this!research!for!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!are!twofold.!First,!this!research!suggests!that!the!intuitions!underlying!supernatural!belief!are!important,!but!have!limited!explanatory!power.!They!do—as!has!been!previously!theorized—promote!supernatural!beliefs!in!those!who!hold!them,!but!these!beliefs!will!not!necessarily!be!a!part!of!any!religious!tradition.!Further,!different!types!of!supernatural!beliefs!may!be!affected!differently!by!these!intuitions.!Most!notably,!we!should!expect!intuitions!to!predict!supernatural!beliefs!when!those!beliefs!are!not!strongly!enforced!by!culture.!!The!second,!and!I!would!suggest!more!important,!implication!to!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!is!the!influence!of!cultural!learning.!Religions!are!cultural!in!nature!and!cultural!learning!plays!a!major!role!in!determining!who!is!and!is!not!religious!as!well!as!the!content!of!a!persons!religious!beliefs.!Though!intuitions!are!important!they!may!be!less!important!then!culture!and!cultural!learning!mechanisms!in!explaining!belief!in!any!particular!religion.!The!cognitive!science!of!religion!would!be!behooved!to!pay!more!attention!to!the!role!of!cultural!learning!in!their!exploration!of!the!foundations!of!religious!beliefs.!!! 145!5.8 Butterfly,Collecting,In!almost!every!section!of!this!chapter!I!have!talked!about!how!these!theories!could!be!tested!across!a!broader!spectrum!of!belief,!using!the!diversity!of!religious!beliefs!that!exist!throughout!the!world!to!form!a!more!complete!model!of!religious!and!supernatural!belief.!We,!as!researchers,!can!exploit!the!existing!variance!in!types!of!supernatural!belief!to!better!understand!the!role!of!both!cognition!and!culture!in!religions!and!other!supernatural!beliefs.!This!is!something!that!is!almost!never!done!in!the!cognitive!science!of!religion.!Too!often,!Christianity!is!taken!as!a!representation!of!all!types!of!religious!belief!around!the!world.!This!is!almost!certainly!hampering!our!knowledge!of!the!phenomenon!we!wish!to!more!fully!understand.!This!problem!of!a!lack!of!diversity!in!psychological!samples!is!in!no!way!unique!to!the!study!of!religion!(see!Henrich,!Heine,!&!Norenzayan,!2010b),!but!this!makes!it!no!less!important.!Religion!has!traditionally!been!the!domain!of!humanities!and!cultural!anthropology!using!historical!and!ethnographic!methodologies.!As!a!way!to!refocus!the!efforts!of!understand!religion,!moving!it!away!from!an!understanding!of!individual!religions!to!an!examination!of!religion!as!something!that!is!cognitively!based,!early!researchers!pushed!for!a!focus!on!the!universal!human!mind!as!the!topic!of!research!rather!then!the!idiosyncratic!beliefs!and!practices!of!individual!religions!and!cultures!(see!Barrett,!2004;!Boyer,!1994).!The!process!of!collecting!and!cataloguing!different!religious!practices!was!dismissed!as!“butterfly!collecting,”!something!far!less!important!than!understanding!the!universal!aspects!of!the!human!mind!(Boyer,!2001).!!! 146!The!push!to!understand!religion!as!being!based!in!the!brain!was!a!noble!pursuit,!and!one!I!have!followed!whole!heartily,!but!I!feel!the!dismissal!of!‘collecting’!different!religions!and!religious!practices!has!been!an!unfortunate!one.!The!examination!of!actual!religious!concepts—including!both!their!similarities!and!differences—is!an!important!part!of!this!puzzle.!This!dismissal!not!only!does!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!a!disservice,!but!also!disregards!the!incredible!boon!the!examination!of!collected!butterflies!has!offered!to!the!understanding!of!biology,!physiology!and!evolution.!A!biologist!who!attempted!to!explain!the!evolution!of!a!genus,!or!species!of!butterfly!without!first!collecting!specimens!and!examining!them!would!find!her!job!exceedingly!difficult,!yet!this!is!precisely!the!approach!implicitly!advocated!by!those!who!would!ridicule!the!‘butterfly!collector’!in!the!study!of!religion.!This!lets!researchers!of!psychology!of!religion!off!the!hook,!freeing!them!from!the!burden!of!collecting!religious!‘specimens’!before!trying!to!explain!a!universality!of!religious!cognitions.!A!more!complete!catalogue!of!beliefs!and!practices!offers!us!the!chance!to!access!profound!insights!into!religions!that!are!simply!not!possible!with!our!currently!limited!scope.!Christianity!should!be!understood!as!a!single!data!point!in!a!wider!sea!of!supernatural!and!religious!beliefs—not!as!the!focus!of!an!entire!field!of!research.!An!expansion!of!scope!(one!that!sees!cognitive!psychologists!looking!as!deeply!into!other!religions!as!they!have!looked!into!Christianity)!can!only!benefit!the!cognitive!science!of!religion.!For!the!cognitive!science!of!religion!to!move!forward,!we!may!need!to!start!collecting!more!butterflies.!!! 147!Bibliography,!Ahmad,!M.!(1991).!Islamic!Fundamentalism!in!South!Asia:!The!JamaatCiCIslami!and!the!Tablighi!Jamaat.!In!M.!E.!Marty!&!R.!S.!Appleby,!Fundementalism$Observed!(pp.!457–528).!Chicago:!University!of!Chicago!Press.!Albrecht,!S.!L.,!&!Heaton,!T.!B.!(1984).!Secularization,!Higher!Education,!and!Religiosity.!Review$of$Religious$Research,!26(1),!43–58.!Apperly,!I.!A.,!&!Butterfill,!S.!A.!(2009).!Do!humans!have!two!systems!to!track!beliefs!and!beliefClike!states?!Psychological$Review,!116(4),!953–970.!http://doi.org/10.1037/a0016923!Apperly,!I.!A.,!Back,!E.,!Samson,!D.,!&!France,!L.!(2008).!The!cost!of!thinking!about!false!beliefs:!Evidence!from!adults’!performance!on!a!nonCinferential!theory!of!mind!task.!Cognition,!106(3),!1093–1108.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.005!Apperly,!I.!A.,!Samson,!D.,!&!Humphreys,!G.!W.!(2005).!DomainCspecificity!and!theory!of!mind:!evaluating!neuropsychological!evidence.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Sciences,!9(12),!572–577.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.004!Astuti,!R.,!&!Harris,!P.!(2008).!Understanding!Mortality!and!the!Life!of!the!Ancestors!in!Rural!Madagascar.!Cognitive$Science:$a$Multidisciplinary$Journal,!32(4),!713–740.!http://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066907!Atran,!S.!(2002).!In!Gods!We!Trust:!The!Evolutionary!Landscape!of!Religion.!Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.!Atran,!S.,!&!Norenzayan,!A.!(2004).!Religion's!evolutionary!landscape:!! 148!counterintuition,!committment,!compassion,!communion.!Behavioral$and$Brain$Sciences,!(27),!713–770.!Banerjee,!K.,!&!Bloom,!P.!(2014a).!Why!did!this!happen!to!me?!Religious!believers!and!nonCbelievers!teleological!reasoning!about!life!events.!Cognition,!133(1),!277–303.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.017!Banerjee,!K.,!&!Bloom,!P.!(2014b).!“Everything!Happens!for!a!Reason”:!Children's!Beliefs!About!Purpose!in!Life!Events.!Child$Development,!86(2),!503–518.!http://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12312!BaronCCohen,!S.!(1995).!Mindblindness:!An!essay!on!autism!and!theory!of!mind.!Cambridge,!MA:!MIT!Press.!BaronCCohen,!S.,!&!Wheelwright,!S.!(2004).!The!Empathy!Quotient:!An!Investigation!of!Adults!with!Asperger!Syndrome!or!High!Functioning!Autism,!and!Normal!Sex!Differences.!Journal$of$Autism$and$Developmental$Disorders,!34(2),!163–175.!http://doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00!BaronCCohen,!S.,!Leslie,!A.!M.,!&!Frith,!U.!(1985).!Does!the!autistic!child!have!a!“theory!of!mind?”!Cognition,!21(1),!37–46.!Barrett,!J.!L.!(2000).!Exploring!the!natural!foundations!of!religion.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Science,!4,!29–34.!Barrett,!J.!L.!(2004).!Why!would!anyone!believe!in!God?!Cognitive$science$of$religion$series!(pp.!ix–141!p.).!Walnut!Creek,!CA:!AltaMira!Press.!Barrett,!J.!L.!(2007).!Cognitive!Science!of!Religion:!What!Is!It!and!Why!Is!It?!Religion$Compass,!1,!1–19.!Barrett,!J.!L.!(2008).!Why!Santa!Claus!is!Not!a!God.!Journal$of$Cognition$and$Culture,!! 149!8(1),!149–161.!http://doi.org/10.1163/156770908X289251!Barrett,!J.!L.,!&!Keil,!F.!C.!(1996).!Conceptualizing!a!Nonnatural!Entity:!Anthropomorphism!in!God!Concepts.!Cognitive$Psychology,!31(3),!219–247.!Baumard,!N.,!&!Boyer,!P.!(2013).!Explaining!moral!religions.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Sciences,!17(6),!272–280.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.003!Baumard,!N.,!&!Chevallier,!C.!(2012).!What!Goes!Around!Comes!Around:!The!Evolutionary!Roots!of!the!Belief!in!Immanent!Justice.!Journal$of$Cognition$and$Culture,!12(1),!67–80.!http://doi.org/10.1163/156853712X633938!BBC.!(2014,!March).!A!Point!of!View:!Is!it!better!to!be!religious!than!spiritual?!Retrieved!June!29,!2014,!from!http://www.bbc.com/news/magazineC27554640!Bender,!C.!(2010).!New!Metaphysicals!:!Spirituality!and!the!American!Religious!Imagination.!Chicago:!University!of!Chicago!Press.!Bender,!C.!(2012).!Mapping!A!Field:!why!and!how!to!study!spirituality.!SSRC$Working$Papers,!1–28.!Bentler,!P.!M.!(2006).!EQS!6!Structural!Equations!Program!Manual.!Encino,!CA:!Multivariate!Software,!Inc.!Berger,!P.!L.!(1967).!The!Sacred!Canopy.!Garden!City,!NY:!Doubleday.!Berger,!P.!L.!(1999).!The!desecularization!of!the!world:!A!global!overview.!In!P.!L.!Berger,!The$desecularization$of$the$world:$Resurgent$religion!(pp.!1–18).!Grand!Rapids,!MI.!Berger,!P.!L.!(1968,!January!1).!A!bleak!outlook!is!seen!for!religion.!New$York$Times.!Bering,!J.!M.!(2002).!The!Existential!Theory!of!Mind.!Review$of$General$Psychology,!6(1),!3–24.!! 150!Bering,!J.!M.!(2003a).!Religious!Concepts!are!Probably!Epiphenomena:!A!Reply!to!Pyysiäinen,!Boyer,!and!Barrett.!Journal$of$Cognition$and$Culture,!3(3),!1–12.!Bering,!J.!M.!(2003b).!Towards!a!cognitive!theory!of!existential!meaning.!New$Ideas$in$Psychology,!21,!101–120.!Bering,!J.!M.!(2006).!The!folk!psychology!of!souls.!Behavioral$and$Brain$Sciences,!29,!453–462.!Bering,!J.!M.!(2011).!The!Belief!Instinct:!The!Psychology!of!Souls,!Destiny,!and!the!Meaning!of!Life.!New!York:!W.!W.!Norton!&!Company.!Bering,!J.!M.,!McLeod,!K.,!&!Shackelford,!T.!(2005).!Reasoning!about!dead!agents!reveals!possible!adaptive!trends.!Human$Nature,!16(4),!360–381.!http://doi.org/10.1007/s12110C005C1015C2!Birch,!S.!A.!J.,!&!Bloom,!P.!(2007).!The!Curse!of!Knowledge!in!Reasoning!About!False!Beliefs.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!18(5),!382–386.!http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467C9280.2007.01909.x!Bloom,!P.!(2005).!Descartes'!Baby:!How!the!Science!of!Child!Development!Explains!What!Makes!Us!Human.!New!York:!Basic!Books.!Bloom,!P.!(2007).!Religion!is!natural.!Developmental$Science,!10(1),!147–151.!Boyd,!R.,!&!Richerson,!P.!J.!(1988).!The!evolution!of!reciprocity!in!sizable!groups.!Journal$of$Theoretical$Biology,!132(3),!337–356.!http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022C5193(88)80219C4!Boyer,!P.!(1994).!The!naturalness!of!religious!ideas:!a!cognitive!theory!of!religion.!Berkley:!University!of!California!Press.!Boyer,!P.!(2001).!Religion!Explained:!The!Evolutionary!Origins!of!Religious!Thought.!! 151!New!York:!Basic!Books.!Boyer,!P.!(2008).!Religion:!Bound!to!believe?!Nature,!455,!1038–1039.!Brenner,!P.!S.!(2011).!Exceptional!Behavior!or!Exceptional!Identity?:!Overreporting!of!Church!Attendance!in!the!U.S.!Public$Opinion$Quarterly,!75(1),!19–41.!http://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq068!Bufford,!R.!K.,!Paloutzian,!R.!F.,!&!Ellison,!C.!W.!(1991).!Norms!for!the!Spiritual!WellCBeing!Scale.!Journal$of$Psychology$and$Theology,!19(1),!56–70.!Buhrmester,!M.,!Kwang,!T.,!&!Gosling,!S.!D.!(2011).!Amazon's!Mechanical!Turk:!A!New!Source!of!Inexpensive,!Yet!HighCQuality,!Data?!Perspectives$on$Psychological$Science,!6(1),!3–5.!http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980!Bulbulia,!J.!A.!(2004).!The!cognitive!and!evolutionary!psychology!of!religion.!Biology$and$Philosophy,!19(5),!655–686.!Butterfill,!S.!A.,!&!Apperly,!I.!A.!(2011).!How!to!construct!a!minimal!theory!of!mind.!Mind$and$Language,!28.!Callan,!M.!J.,!Ellard,!J.!H.,!&!Nicol,!J.!E.!(2006).!The!Belief!in!a!Just!World!and!Immanent!Justice!Reasoning!in!Adults.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Bulletin,!32(12),!1646–1658.!http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292236!Casler,!K.,!&!Kelemen,!D.!(2007).!Reasoning!about!artifacts!at!24!months:!The!developing!teleoCfunctional!stance.!Cognition,!103(1),!120–130.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.006!Cheung,!B.!Y.,!Chudek,!M.,!&!Heine,!S.!J.!(2011).!Evidence!for!a!Sensitive!Period!for!Acculturation:!Younger!Immigrants!Report!Acculturating!at!a!Faster!Rate.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!22(2),!147–152.!! 152!http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610394661!Chudek,!M.,!&!Henrich,!J.!(2011).!Culture–gene!coevolution,!normCpsychology!and!the!emergence!of!human!prosociality.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Sciences,!15(5),!218–226.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.003!Chudek,!M.,!McNamara,!R.,!Birch,!S.!A.!J.,!Bloom,!P.,!&!Henrich,!J.!(2013).!Developmental!and!crossCcultural!evidence!for!intuitive!dualism.!Submitted$for$Publicaiton.!Cohen,!A.!B.!(2009).!Many!Forms!of!Culture.!American$Psychologist,!64(3),!194–204.!http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015308!Cohen,!A.!B.,!&!Hill,!P.!C.!(2007).!Religion!as!Culture:!Religious!Individualism!and!Collectivism!Among!American!Catholics,!Jews,!and!Protestants.!Journal$of$Personality,!75(4),!709–742.!http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467C6494.2007.00454.x!Cohen,!A.!B.,!Siegel,!J.!I.,!&!Rozin,!P.!(2003).!Faith!versus!practice:!different!bases!for!religiosity!judgments!by!Jews!and!Protestants.!European$Journal$of$Social$Psychology,!33(2),!287–295.!http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.148!Crumbaugh,!J.!C.!(1968).!CrossCvalidation!of!PurposeCinCLife!test!based!on!Frankl's!concepts.!Journal$of$Individual$Psychology.!Csibra,!G.,!Gergely,!G.,!Biro,!S.,!Koós,!O.,!&!Brockbank,!M.!(1999).!Goal!attribution!without!agency!cues:!the!perception!of!“pure!reason”!in!infancy.!Cognition,!72,!237±267.!Damasio,!A.!(1994).!Descartes'!error:!Emotion,!reason,!and!the!human!brain.!New!York:!Putnam.!Davis,!B.!(2014,!July).!Spiritual!But!Not!Religious:!Why!Are!So!Many!Marching!for!the!! 153!Church!Door?!Huffington$Post.!Retrieved!from!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruceCdavisCphd/spiritualCbutCnotCreligio_3_b_5631095.html!Dawkins,!R.!(2006).!The!God!Delusion.!New!York:!Bantam!books.!de!Castella,!T.!(2013,!January).!Spiritual,!But!Not!Religious.!Retrieved!June!29,!2014,!from!http://www.bbc.com/news/magazineC20888141!Durkheim,!É.,!Cosman,!C.,!&!Cladis,!M.!S.!(1912).!The!elementary!forms!of!religious!life.!Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.!Enders,!C.!K.!(2001).!The!impact!of!nonnormality!on!full!information!maximumClikelihood!estimation!for!structural!equation!models!with!missing!data.!Psychological$Methods,!6(4),!352–370.!http://doi.org/doi:10.1037/1082C989X.6.4.352!Epley,!N.!(2014).!Mindwise:!How!We!Understand!What!Others!Think,!Believe,!Feel,!and!Want.!New!York:!Random!House.!Epley,!N.,!Akalis,!S.,!Waytz,!A.,!&!Cacioppo,!J.!T.!(2008a).!Creating!Social!Connection!Through!Inferential!Reproduction:!Loneliness!and!Perceived!Agency!in!Gadgets,!Gods,!and!Greyhounds.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!19,!114–120.!Epley,!N.,!Converse,!B.!A.,!Delbosc,!A.,!Monteleone,!G.!A.,!&!Cacioppo,!J.!T.!(2009).!Believers'!estimates!of!God‘s!beliefs!are!more!egocentric!than!estimates!of!other!people’s!beliefs.!Proceedings$of$the$National$Academy$of$Sciences,!106(51),!21533–21538.!http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908374106!Epley,!N.,!Waytz,!A.,!Akalis,!S.,!&!Cacioppo,!J.!T.!(2008b).!When!we!need!a!Human:!Motivational!Determinants!of!Anthropomorphism.!Social$Cognition,!26,!143–! 154!155.!EvansCPritchard,!E.!E.!(1937).!Witchcraft,$oracles$and$magic$among$the$Azande.!Oxford:!Clarendon!Press.!Feuerbach,!L.!(1957).!The!Essence!of!Christianity.!New!York:!Harper!&!Row.!Finke,!R.,!&!Stark,!R.!(2005).!The!Churching!of!America,!1776C2005:!Winners!And!Losers!In!Our!Religious!Economy.!Piscataway,!NJ:!Rutgers!University!Press.!Frederick,!S.!(2005).!Cognitive!reflection!and!decision!making.!The$Journal$of$Economic$Perspectives,!19(4),!25–42.!Froese,!P.!(2004).!After!atheism:!An!analysis!of!religious!monopolies!in!the!postCcommunist!world.!Sociology$of$Religion,!65(1),!57–75.!Froese,!P.!(2005).!Secular!Czechs!and!devout!Slovaks:!Explaining!religious!differences.!Review$of$Religious$Research,!269–283.!Fuller,!R.!C.!(2001).!Spiritual!but!not!Religious:!Understanding!Unchurched!America.!New!York:!Oxford!University!Press.!Furnham,!A.!(2003).!Belief!in!a!just!world:!Research!progress!over!the!past!decade.!Personality$and$Individual$Differences,!34(5),!795–817.!Gatehouse,!J.!(2014,!May).!America!dumbs!down.!Macleans.!Retrieved!from!http://www.macleans.ca/politics/americaCdumbsCdown/!Geertz,!A.!W.,!&!Markússon,!G.!I.!(2010).!Religion!is!natural,!atheism!is!not:!On!why!everybody!is!both!right!and!wrong.!Religion,!40(3),!152–165.!Gelman,!R.,!Durgin,!F.,!&!Kaufman,!L.!(1995).!Distinguising!between!animates!and!inanimates:!Not!by!motion!alone.!In!D.!Sperber,!D.!Premack,!&!A.!J.!Premack,!Causal$Cognition:$A$multidisciplinary$debate!(pp.!150–184).!Oxford:!Clarendon!! 155!Press.!Gergely,!G.,!&!Csibra,!G.!(2003).%Teleological%reasoning%in%infancy:%the%naıv̈e%theory%of%rational!action.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Sciences,!7(7),!287–292.!http://doi.org/10.1016/S1364C6613(03)00128C1!Gervais,!W.!M.,!&!Henrich,!J.!(2010).!The!Zeus!Problem:!Why!Representational!Content!Biases!Cannot!Explain!Faith!in!Gods.!Journal$of$Cognition$and$Culture,!10,!383–389.!Gervais,!W.!M.,!&!Norenzayan,!A.!(2012).!Analytic!Thinking!Promotes!Religious!Disbelief.!Science,!336(6080),!493–496.!http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215647!Gervais,!W.!M.,!Willard,!A.!K.,!Norenzayan,!A.,!&!Henrich,!J.!(2011).!The!Cultural!Transmission!of!Faith:!Why!natural!intuitions!and!memory!biases!are!necessary,!but!insufficient,!to!explain!religious!belief.!Religion,!41(1),!389–400.!Gleick,!P.!(2011,!August).!Why!AntiCScience!Ideology!is!Bad!for!America.!Forbes.!Gorski,!P.!S.!(2000).!Historicizing!the!secularization!debate:!Church,!state,!and!society!in!late!medieval!and!early!modern!Europe,!ca.!1300!to!1700.!American$Sociological$Review,!138–167.!Gorski,!P.!S.!(2003).!Historicizing!the!Secularization!Debate.!An!Agenda!for!Research.!In!M.!Dillon,!Handbook$of$the$Sociology$of$Religion!(pp.!110–122).!Cambridge:!Cambridge!University!Press.!Gray,!H.!M.,!Gray,!K.,!&!Wegner,!D.!M.!(2007).!Dimensions!of!Mind!Perception.!Science,!315(5812),!619–619.!http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475!Gray,!K.,!&!Wegner,!D.!(2010).!Blaming!God!for!our!pain:!Human!suffering!and!the!! 156!divine!mind.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!14(1),!7–16.!Gray,!K.,!Jenkins,!A.!C.,!Heberlein,!A.!S.,!&!Wegner,!D.!M.!(2011).!Distortions!of!mind!perception!in!psychopathology.!Proceedings$of$the$National$Academy$of$Sciences,!108(2),!477–479.!http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015493108/C/DCSupplemental!Gruber,!J.,!&!Hungerman,!D.!M.!(2008).!The!Church!versus!the!Mall:!What!Happens!When!Religion!Faces!Increased!Secular!Competition?!The$Quarterly$Journal$of$Economics,!831–826.!Guajardo,!J.!J.,!&!Woodward,!A.!L.!(2004).!Is!Agency!Skin!Deep?!Surface!Attributes!Influence!Infants'!Sensitivity!to!GoalCDirected!Action.!Infancy,!6(3),!361–384.!Guthrie,!S.!E.!(1993).!Faces!in!the!clouds:!A!new!theory!of!religion.!New!York:!Oxford!University!Press.!Guthrie,!S.!E.!(1996).!Religion:!What!Is!It?!Journal$for$the$Scientific$Study$of$Religion,!35(4),!412–419.!Guthrie,!S.,!Agassi,!J.,!Andriolo,!K.!R.,!Buchdahl,!D.,!Earhart,!H.!B.,!Greenberg,!M.,!et!al.!(1980).!A!cognitive!theory!of!religion![and!comments!and!reply].!Current$Anthropology,!181–203.!Hadaway,!C.!K.,!Marler,!P.!L.,!&!Chaves,!M.!(1993).!What!the!polls!don't!show:!A!closer!look!at!US!church!attendance.!American$Sociological$Review,!741–752.!Hadden,!J.!K.!(1987).!Toward!desacralizing!secularization!theory.!Social$Forces,!65(3),!587–611.!Hamlin,!J.!K.,!&!Wynn,!K.!(2011).!Young!infants!prefer!prosocial!to!antisocial!others.!Cognitive$Development,!26(1),!30–39.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.09.001!! 157!Hamlin,!J.!K.,!Wynn,!K.,!&!Bloom,!P.!(2007).!Social!evaluation!by!preverbal!infants.!Nature,!450(7169),!557–559.!http://doi.org/10.1038/nature06288!Hamplova,!D.,!&!Nespor,!Z.!R.!(2009).!Invisible!Religion!in!a!“NonCbelieving”!Country:!The!Case!of!the!Czech!Republic.!Social$Compass,!56(4),!581–597.!http://doi.org/10.1177/0037768609345975!Heider,!F.,!&!Simmel,!S.!(1944).!An!experimental!study!of!apparent!behavior.!American$Journal$of$Psychology,!(57),!243–259.!Henrich,!J.!(2009).!The!evolution!of!costly!displays,!cooperation,!and!religion:!Credibility!enhancing!displays!and!their!implications!for!cultural!evolution.!Evolution$and$Human$Behavior,!30(244C260),!244–260.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.005!Henrich,!J.,!&!Boyd,!R.!(1998).!The!Evolution!of!Conformist!Transmission!and!the!Emergence!of!BetweenCGroup!Differences.!Evolution$and$Human$Behavior,!19,!215–241.!Henrich,!J.,!&!GilCWhite,!F.!J.!(2001).!The!evolution!of!prestige:!freely!conferred!deference!as!a!mechanism!for!enhancing!the!benefits!of!cultural!transmission.!Evolution$and$Human$Behavior,!22(3),!165–196.!Henrich,!J.,!Ensimger,!J.,!McElreath,!R.,!Barr,!A.,!Barrett,!C.,!Bolyanatz,!A.,!et!al.!(2010a).!Markets,!Religion,!Community!Size,!and!the!Evolution!of!Fairness!and!Punishment.!Science,!327(5972),!1480–1484.!http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182238!Henrich,!J.,!Heine,!S.!J.,!&!Norenzayan,!A.!(2010b).!The!weirdest!people!in!the!world?!Behavioral$and$Brain$Sciences,!33(2C3),!61–83.!! 158!http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X!Henrich,!J.,!McElreath,!R.,!Barr,!A.,!Ensminger,!J.,!Barrett,!C.,!Bolyanatz,!A.,!et!al.!(2006).!Costly!punishment!across!human!societies.!Science,!312(5781),!1767–1770.!Herrmann,!E.,!Call,!J.,!HernándezCLloreda,!M.!V.,!Hare,!B.,!&!Tomasello,!M.!(2007).!Humans!Have!Evolved!Specialized!Skills!of!Social!Cognition:!The!Cultural!Intelligence!Hypothesis.!Science,!317(5843),!1360–1366.!http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146282!Hill,!P.!C.,!Pargament,!K.!I.,!Hood,!R.!W.,!McCullough,!M.!E.,!Jr,!Swyers,!J.!P.,!Larson,!D.!B.,!&!Zinnbauer,!B.!J.!(2000).!Conceptualizing!religion!and!spirituality:!Points!of!commonality,!points!of!departure.!Journal$for$the$Theory$of$Social$Behaviour,!30(1),!51–77.!Retrieved!from!http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=Zinnbauer+and+Pargament&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=!Hood,!B.!M.,!Willen,!J.!D.,!&!Driver,!J.!(1998).!Adult's!Eyes!Trigger!Shifts!of!Visual!Attention!in!Human!Infants.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!9(2),!131–134.!Hout,!M.,!&!Greeley,!A.!M.!(1987).!The!center!doesn't!hold:!Church!attendance!in!the!United!States,!1940C1984.!American$Sociological$Review,!325–345.!Hume,!D.!(1981).!Dialogues$concerning$natural$religion.!Indianapolis,!IN:!BobbsCMerrill.!Hungerman,!D.!M.!(2014).!The!effect!of!education!on!religion:!Evidence!from!compulsory!schooling!laws.!Journal$of$Economic$Behavior$and$Organization,!104,!! 159!52–63.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.09.004!Johnson,!C.!N.!(1990).!If!You!Had!My!Brain,!Where!Would!I!Be?!Children's!Understanding!of!the!Brain!and!Identity.!Child$Development,!61(4),!962–972.!Johnson,!C.!N.,!&!Wellman,!H.!M.!(1982).!Children's!Developing!Conceptions!of!the!Mind!and!Brain.!Child$Development,!53(1),!222–234.!Johnson,!S.!C.,!Slaughter,!V.,!&!Carey,!S.!(1998).!Whose!gaze!will!infants!follow?!The!elicitation!of!gazeCfollowing!in!12CmonthColds.!Developmental$Science,!1(2),!233–238.!http://doi.org/10.1111/1467C7687.00036!Jong,!J.,!Halberstadt,!J.,!&!Bluemke,!M.!(2012).!Foxhole!atheism,!revisited:!The!effects!of!mortality!salience!on!explicit!and!implicit!religious!belief.!Journal$of$Experimental$Social$Psychology,!48(5),!983–989.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.005!Kapogiannis,!D.,!Barbey,!A.!K.,!Su,!M.,!Zamboni,!G.,!Krueger,!F.,!&!Grafman,!J.!(2009).!Cognitive!and!neural!foundations!of!religious!belief.!Proceedings$of$the$National$Academy$of$Sciences,!106(12),!4876–4881.!http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811717106!Kay,!A.!C.,!Gaucher,!D.,!McGregor,!I.,!&!Nash,!K.!(2010a).!Religious!Belief!as!Compensatory!Control.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!14(1),!37–48.!http://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353750!Kay,!A.!C.,!Gaucher,!D.,!Napier,!J.!L.,!Callan,!M.!J.,!&!Laurin,!K.!(2008).!God!and!the!government:!Testing!a!compensatory!control!mechanism!for!the!support!of!external!systems.!Journal$of$Personality$and$Social$Psychology,!95(1),!18–35.!http://doi.org/10.1037/0022C3514.95.1.18!! 160!Kay,!A.!C.,!Moscovitch,!D.!A.,!&!Laurin,!K.!(2010b).!Randomness,!Attributions!of!Arousal,!and!Belief!in!God.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!21(2),!216–218.!http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357750!Kay,!A.!C.,!Whitson,!J.!A.,!Gaucher,!D.,!&!Galinsky,!A.!D.!(2009).!Compensatory!Control:!Achieving!Order!Through!the!Mind,!Our!Institutions,!and!the!Heavens.!Current$Directions$in$Psychological$Science,!18(5),!264–268.!http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467C8721.2009.01649.x!Keesing,!R.!M.!(1984).!Rethinking!“Mana.”!Journal$of$Anthropological$Research,!40(1),!137–156.!http://doi.org/10.2307/3629696?ref=noCxCroute:339dfa23bcdbacc3031ccfc7efff2a7c!Kelemen,!D.!(1999).!Function,!goals!and!intention:!children’s!teleological!reasoning!about!objects.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Sciences,!3(12),!461–468.!Kelemen,!D.!(2004).!Are!Children!“Intuitive!Theists?”!Reasoning!about!purpose!and!design!in!nature.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!15(5),!295–301.!http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956C7976.2004.00672.x!Kelemen,!D.,!&!DiYanni,!C.!(2005).!Intuitions!About!Origins:!Purpose!and!Intelligent!Design!in!Children's!Reasoning!About!Nature.!Journal$of$Cognition$and$Development,!6(1),!3–31.!Kelemen,!D.,!&!Rosset,!E.!(2009).!The!Human!Function!Compunction:!Teleological!explanation!in!adults.!Cognition,!111(1),!138–143.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001!Kelemen,!D.,!Rottman,!J.,!&!Seston,!R.!(2013).!Professional!physical!scientists!display!tenacious!teleological!tendencies:!PurposeCbased!reasoning!as!a!cognitive!! 161!default.!Journal$of$Experimental$….!http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030399!Knight,!N.,!Sousa,!P.,!Barrett,!J.!L.,!&!Atran,!S.!(2004).!Children's!attributions!of!beliefs!to!humans!and!God:!crossCcultural!evidence.!Cognitive$Science,!28(1),!117–126.!Kuhlmeier,!V.!A.,!Bloom,!P.,!&!Wynn,!K.!(2004).!Do!5CmonthCold!infants!see!humans!as!material!objects?!Cognition,!94(1),!95–103.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.007!Lanman,!J.!A.!(2012).!The!Importance!of!Religious!Displays!for!Belief!Acquisition!and!Secularization.!Journal$of$Contemporary$Religion,!27(1),!49–65.!http://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2012.642726!Lanman,!J.!A.,!&!Buhrmester,!M.!(n.d.).!Religious!Actions!Speak!Louder!Than!Words:!!Exposure!to!CREDs!Predicts!Theism.!The$International$Journal$for$the$Psychology$of$Religion.!Larson,!E.!J.,!&!Witham,!L.!(1997).!Scientists!are!still!keeping!the!faith.!Nature,!386,!435–436.!Legare,!C.!H.,!&!Gelman,!S.!A.!(2008).!Bewitchment,!Biology,!or!Both:!The!CoCExistence!of!Natural!and!Supernatural!Explanatory!Frameworks!Across!Development.!Cognitive$Science:$a$Multidisciplinary$Journal,!32(4),!607–642.!http://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066766!Legare,!C.!H.,!Evans,!E.!M.,!Rosengren,!K.!S.,!&!Harris,!P.!L.!(2012).!The!Coexistence!of!Natural!and!Supernatural!Explanations!Across!Cultures!and!Development.!Child$Development,!83(3),!779–793.!http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467C8624.2012.01743.x!Lerner,!M.!(1980).!The!belief!in!a!just!world:!a!fundamental!delusion.!New!York:!! 162!Plemum.!Leslie,!A.!M.!(1994).!ToMM,!ToBy,!and!Agency:!Core!architecture!and!domain!specificity.!In!L.!A.!Hirschfeld!&!S.!A.!Gelman,!Mapping$the$mind:$Domain$specificity$in$cognition$and$culture.!Cambridge:!Cambridge!University!Press.!Leslie,!A.!M.,!Friedman,!O.,!&!German,!T.!P.!(2004).!Core!mechanisms!in!“theory!of!mind.”!Trends$in$Cognitive$Sciences,!8(12),!528–533.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.001!Lillard,!A.!S.!(1996).!Body!or!Mind:!Children's!Categorizing!of!Pretense.!Child$Development,!67(4),!1717–1734.!Lindeman,!M.,!&!Aarnio,!K.!(2006).!Paranormal!beliefs:!their!dimensionality!and!correlates.!European$Journal$of$Personality,!20(7),!585–602.!http://doi.org/10.1002/per.608!Lisdorf,!A.!(2007).!“What’s!HIDD’n!in!the!HADD?".!Journal$of$Cognition$and$Culture,!7,!341–353.!Lombrozo,!T.,!Kelemen,!D.,!&!Zaitchik,!D.!(2007).!Inferring!Design!Evidence!of!a!Preference!for!Teleological!Explanations!in!Patients!With!Alzheimer’s!Disease.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!(18),!11.!Lužný,!D.,!&!Navrátilová,!J.!(2001).!Religion!and!secularisation!in!the!Czech!Republic.!Czech$Sociological$Review,!85–98.!MacClancy,!J.!(1986).!Mana:!An!Anthropological!Metaphor!for!Island!Melanesia.!Oceania,!57(2),!142–153.!http://doi.org/10.2307/40332332?ref=noCxCroute:20fdfc753d948a7e3d885161cf7808e0!Marler,!P.!L.,!&!Hadaway,!C.!K.!(2002).!"Being!Religious"!or!“Being!Spiritual”!in!! 163!America:!A!ZeroCSum!Proposition?!Journal$for$the$Scientific$Study$of$Religion,!41(2),!289–300.!Martin,!D.!(1968).!A!General!Theory!of!Secularization.!Oxford:!Blackwell.!McCleary,!R.,!&!Barro,!R.!(2006).!Religion!and!political!economy!in!an!international!panel.!Journal$for$the$Scientific$Study$of$….!McCullough,!M.!E.,!&!Willoughby,!B.!(2009).!Religion,!selfCregulation,!and!selfCcontrol:!Associations,!explanations,!and!implications.!Psychological$Bulletin.!http://doi.org/10.1037/0033C2909.●●.●.000!McCullough,!M.!E.,!Bono,!G.,!&!Root,!L.!M.!(2005).!Religion!and!forgiveness.!In!Handbook$of$the$psychology$of$religion$and$spirituality.!Guilford!Press.!McCullough,!M.!E.,!Carter,!E.!C.,!DeWall,!C.!N.,!&!Corrales,!C.!M.!(2012).!Religious!cognition!downCregulates!sexually!selected,!characteristically!male!behaviors!in!men,!but!not!in!women.!Evolution$and$Human$Behavior,!33(5),!562–568.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.02.004!McKay,!R.!T.,!&!Dennett,!D.!C.!(2010).!The!evolution!of!misbelief.!Behavioral$and$Brain$Sciences,!32(06),!493.!http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09990975!Minarik,!P.!(2014).!Employment,!Wages,!and!Religious!Revivals!in!Postcommunist!Countries.!Journal$for$the$Scientific$Study$of$Religion,!53(2),!296–315.!http://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12113!Mutlu,!K.!(1996).!Examining!religious!beliefs!among!university!students!in!Ankara.!British$Journal$of$Sociology,!353–359.!Nešpor,!Z.!R.!(2004).!Religious!processes!in!contemporary!Czech!society.!Sociologický$Časopis/Czech$Sociological$Review,!(03),!277–295.!! 164!Newman,!G.!E.,!Keil,!F.!C.,!Kuhlmeier,!V.!A.,!&!Wynn,!K.!(2010).!Early!understandings!of!the!link!between!agents!and!order.!Proceedings$of$the$National$Academy$of$Sciences,!107(40),!17140–17145.!http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914056107/C/DCSupplemental!Newport,!F.!(2014,!May!8).!In!U.S.,!46%!Hold!Creationist!View!of!Human!Origins.!Retrieved!April!15,!2015,!from!http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believeCcreationistCviewChumanCorigins.aspx!Newsweek.!(2009,!April!16).!Newsweek!Poll!A!PostCChristian!Nation?!Princeton!Survey!Research!Associates!International.!Retrieved!May!29,!2014,!from!http://www.psrai.com/filesave/0904%20ftop%20w%20methodology.pdf!Norenzayan,!A.!(2013).!Big$Gods:$How$Religion$Transformed$Cooperation$and$Conflict.!Princeton!University!Press.!Norenzayan,!A.,!&!Gervais,!W.!M.!(2012).!The!Multiple!Origins!of!Religious!Disbelief,!1–27.!Norenzayan,!A.,!&!Gervais,!W.!M.!(2013).!The!origins!of!religious!disbelief.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Sciences,!17(1),!20–25.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.006!Norenzayan,!A.,!&!Hansen,!I.!G.!(2006).!Belief!in!Supernatural!Agents!in!the!Face!of!Death.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Bulletin,!32(2),!174–187.!http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205280251!Norenzayan,!A.,!Gervais,!W.!M.,!&!Trzesniewski,!K.!H.!(2012).!Mentalizing!Deficits!Constrain!Belief!in!a!Personal!God.!PLoS$ONE,!7(5),!e36880.!Norenzayan,!A.,!Hansen,!I.!G.,!&!Cady,!J.!(2008).!An!Angry!Volcano?!Reminders!of!Death!and!Anthropomorphizing!Nature.!Social$Cognition,!26(2),!190–197.!! 165!http://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.190!Norenzayan,!A.,!Shariff,!A.!F.,!Gervais,!W.!M.,!Willard,!A.!K.,!McNamara,!R.!A.,!Slingerland,!E.,!&!Henrich,!J.!(2015).!The!Cultural!evolution!of!Prosocial!Religions.!Behavioral$and$Brain$Sciences,!1–86.!http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14001356!Norris,!P.,!&!Inglehart,!R.!(2004).!Sacred!and!Secular:!Religion!and!Politics!Worldwide.!Cambridge:!Cambridge!University!Press.!Oppenheimer,!M.!(2014,!July).!Examining$the$Growth$of$the$“Spiritual$but$Not$Religious.”!New$York$Times.!Retrieved!from!http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/us/examiningCtheCgrowthCofCtheCspiritualCbutCnotCreligious.html!Otto,!S.!L.!(2012,!October).!Antiscience!Beliefs!Jeopardize!U.S.!Democracy.!Scientific$American.!Retrieved!from!http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscienceCbeliefsCjeopardizeCusCdemocracy/!Pargament,!K.!I.!(1999).!The!psychology!of!religion!and!spirituality?!Yes!and!no.!The$International$Journal$for$the$Psychology$of$Religion,!9(1),!3–16.!Pennycook,!G.,!Cheyne,!J.!A.,!Seli,!P.,!Koehler,!D.!J.,!&!Fugelsang,!J.!A.!(2012).!Analytic!cognitive!style!predicts!religious!and!paranormal!belief.!Cognition,!123(3),!335–346.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003!Piedmont,!R.!L.,!&!Wilkins,!T.!A.!(2005).!The!role!of!personality!in!understanding!religious!and!spiritual!constructs.!In!R.!F.!Paloutzian!&!C.!L.!Park,!Handbook$of$the$psychology$of$religion$and$spirituality!(pp.!253–273).!New!York.!! 166!Preston,!J.!L.,!Ritter,!R.!S.,!&!Hepler,!J.!(2013).!Neuroscience!and!the!soul:!Competing!explanations!for!the!human!experience.!Cognition,!127(1),!31–37.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.003!Pritchard,!D.,!&!Smith,!M.!(2004).!The!psychology!and!philosophy!of!luck.!New$Ideas$in$Psychology,!22(1),!1–28.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2004.03.001!Purzycki,!B.!G.!(2013).!The!minds!of!gods:!A!comparative!study!of!supernatural!agency.!Cognition,!129(1),!1–17.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.010!Purzycki,!B.!G.,!&!Sosis,!R.!(2011).!Our!Gods:!Variation!in!Supernatural!Minds!Essential!Building!Blocks!of!Human!Nature.!In!U.!J.!Frey,!C.!Störmer,!&!K.!P.!Willführ,!Our$Gods:$Variation$in$Supernatural$Minds$Essential$Building$Blocks$of$Human$Nature!(pp.!77–93).!Springer!Berlin!Heidelberg.!http://doi.org/10.1007/978C3C642C13968C0_5!Rakison,!D.!H.,!&!PoulinCDubois,!D.!(2001).!Developmental!origin!of!the!animateCinanimate!distinction.!Psychological$Bulletin,!127(2),!209–228.!http://doi.org/10.1037//0033C2909.127.2.209!Roof,!W.!C.!(1993).!A$generation$of$seekers:$The$spiritual$journeys$of$the$Baby$Boom$generation.!San!Fransisco:!Harper.!Roof,!W.!C.!(1999).!The!Spiritual!Marketplace:!Baby!Boomers!and!the!Remaking!of!American!Religion.!Princeton,!NJ:!Princton!University!Press.!Rosseel,!Y.!(2012).!lavaan:!An!R!package!for!structural!equation!modeling.!Journal$of$Statistical.!Roth,!L.!M.,!&!Kroll,!J.!C.!(2007).!Risky!Business:!Assessing!Risk!Preference!! 167!Explanations!for!Gender!Differences!in!Religiosity.!American$Sociological$Review,!72(2),!205–220.!http://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200204!Saroglou,!V.!(2002).!Religion!and!the!five!factors!of!personality:!A!metaCanalytic!review.!Personality$and$Individual$Differences,!32(1),!15–25.!http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191C8869(00)00233C6!Saroglou,!V.,!Buxant,!C.,!&!Tilquin,!J.!(2008).!Positive!emotions!as!leading!to!religion!and!spirituality.!The$Journal$of$Positive$Psychology,!3(3),!165–173.!http://doi.org/10.1080/17439760801998737!Saucier,!G.,!&!Skrzypińska,!K.!(2006).!Spiritual!But!Not!Religious?!Evidence!for!Two!Independent!Dispositions.!Journal$of$Personality,!74(5),!1257–1292.!http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467C6494.2006.00409.x!Scaife,!M.,!&!Bruner,!J.!S.!(1975).!The!capacity!for!joint!visual!attention!in!the!infant.!Nature.!Schjoedt,!U.,!StodkildeCJorgensen,!H.,!Geertz,!A.!W.,!&!Roepstorff,!A.!(2009).!Highly!religious!participants!recruit!areas!of!social!cognition!in!personal!prayer.!Social$Cognitive$and$Affective$Neuroscience,!4(2),!199–207.!http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn050!Scholl,!B.!J.,!&!Tremoulet,!P.!D.!(2000).!Perceptual!causality!and!animacy.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Science,!4(8),!299–309.!Shariff,!A.!F.,!Purzycki,!B.!G.,!&!Sosis,!R.!(2014).!Religions!as!cultural!solutions!to!social!living.!In!A.!B.!Cohen,!Culture$Reexamined.!American!Psychological!Association.!Shenhav,!A.,!Rand,!D.!G.,!&!Greene,!J.!D.!(2012).!Divine!intuition:!Cognitive!style!! 168!influences!belief!in!God.!Journal$of$Experimental$Psychology:$General,!141(3),!423.!http://doi.org/10.1037/a0025391!Slingerland,!E.!(2008).!What!science!offers!the!humanities:!integrating!body!and!culture.!New!York:!Cambridge!University!Press.!Slingerland,!E.,!&!Chudek,!M.!(2011).!The!Prevalence!of!Mind–Body!Dualism!in!Early!China.!Cognitive$Science,!35(5),!997–1007.!http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551C6709.2011.01186.x!Sommerville,!C.!J.!(1998).!Secular!society/religious!population:!Our!tacit!rules!for!using!the!term“secularization.”!Journal$for$the$Scientific$Study$of$Religion,!249–253.!Sommerville,!C.!J.!(2002).!Stark's!of!Faith!and!the!Age!Argument!Secularization!of!Things:!A!Commentary.!Sociology$of$Religion,!63(3),!361–372.!Sosis,!R.,!&!Alcorta,!C.!(2003).!Signaling,!Solidarity,!and!the!Sacred:!The!Evolution!of!Religious!Behavior.!Evolutionary$Anthropology,!12,!264–274.!Stanovich,!K.!E.!(1989).!Implicit!Philosophies!of!Mind:!The!Dualism!Scale!and!Its!Relation!to!Religiosity!and!Belief!in!Extrasensory!Perception.!Journal$of$Psychology,!123(1),!5.!Stark,!R.!(1999).!Secularization,!rip.!Sociology$of$Religion,!60(3),!249–273.!Stark,!R.!(2002).!Physiology!and!Faith:!Addressing!the!“Universal”!Gender!Difference!in!Religious!Commitment.!Journal$for$the$Scientific$Study$of$Religion,!41(3),!495–507.!http://doi.org/10.1111/1468C5906.00133!Stark,!R.,!&!Bainbridge,!W.!S.!(1985).!The!Future!of!Religion:!secularization,!revival!and!cult!formation.!Berkeley:!University!of!California!Press.!! 169!Thomas,!K.!(1970).!The!Relevance!of!Social!Anthropology!to!the!Historical!Study!of!English!Witchcraft.!In!M.!Douglas,!Withcraft$Confessions$and$Accusations!(pp.!47–80).!New!York:!Routledge.!Tobacyk,!J.!J.!(2004).!A!revised!paranormal!belief!scale.!The$International$Journal$of$Transpersonal$Studies,!23(94C99).!Todd,!D.!(2014,!April).!Richard!Dawkins:!Just!25!per!cent!of!atheists!and!agnostics!approve!of!him.!Retrieved!June!29,!2014,!from!http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/04/21/richardCdawkinsCjustC25CperCcentCofCatheistsCandCagnosticsCapproveCofChim/!Tomasello,!M.,!Carpenter,!M.,!Call,!J.,!Behne,!T.,!&!Moll,!H.!(2005).!Understanding!and!sharing!intentions:!The!origins!of!cultural!cognition.!Behavioral$and$Brain$Sciences,!28,!675–735.!Trivers,!R.!(1971).!The!evolution!of!reciprocal!altruism.!Quarterly$Review$of$Biology,!46,!35–57.!Ullman,!J.!B.,!&!Bentler,!P.!M.!(2012).!Structural!Equation!Modeling.!Handbook$of$Social$Psychology,!24,!607–634.!Vail,!K.!E.,!Arndt,!J.,!&!Abdollahi,!A.!(2012).!Exploring!the!Existential!Function!of!Religion!and!Supernatural!Agent!Beliefs!Among!Christians,!Muslims,!Atheists,!and!Agnostics.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Bulletin,!38(10),!1288–1300.!http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212449361!Voas,!D.!(2008).!The!Rise!and!Fall!of!Fuzzy!Fidelity!in!Europe.!European$Sociological$Review,!25(2),!155–168.!http://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn044!Walter,!T.,!&!Davie,!G.!(1998).!The!religiosity!of!women!in!the!modern!West.!British$! 170!Journal$of$Sociology.!http://doi.org/10.2307/3088256?ref=noCxCroute:4e51a26a32dfccfdc4bb075098060b5b!Waytz,!A.,!Cacioppo,!J.,!&!Epley,!N.!(2010a).!Who!Sees!Human?:!The!Stability!and!Importance!of!Individual!Differences!in!Anthropomorphism.!Perspectives$on$Psychological$Science,!5(3),!219–232.!http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336!Waytz,!A.,!Gray,!K.,!Epley,!N.,!&!Wegner,!D.!M.!(2010b).!Causes!and!consequences!of!mind!perception.!Trends$in$Cognitive$Sciences,!14(8),!383–388.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006!Waytz,!A.,!Morewedge,!C.!K.,!Epley,!N.,!Monteleone,!G.,!Gao,!J.CH.,!&!Cacioppo,!J.!T.!(2010c).!Making!sense!by!making!sentient:!Effectance!motivation!increases!anthropomorphism.!Journal$of$Personality$and$Social$Psychology,!99(3),!410–435.!http://doi.org/10.1037/a0020240!Weber,!M.!(1904).!The!Protestant!Ethic!and!the!Spirit!of!Capitalism.!New!York:!Scribner's.!Weingarten,!C.!P.,!&!Chisholm,!J.!S.!(2009).!Attachment!and!Cooperation!in!Religious!Groups.!Current$Anthropology,!50(6),!759–785.!http://doi.org/10.1086/605767!Weinstein,!L.,!&!Cleanthous,!C.!C.!(1996).!A!comparison!of!protestant!ministers!and!parishioners!on!expressed!purpose!in!life!and!intrinsic!religious!motivation.!Psychology$a$Journal$of$Human$Behavior,!33(1).!White,!R.!W.!(1959).!Motivation!reconsidered:!The!concept!of!competence.!Psychological$Review,!66(5),!297–333.!http://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934!Whitehouse,!H.!(2004).!Modes!of!religiosity:!a!cognitive!theory!of!religious!! 171!transmission.!Walnut!Creek,!CA:!AltaMira!Press.!Willard,!A.!K.,!&!Norenzayan,!A.!(2013).!Cognitive!biases!explain!religious!belief,!paranormal!belief,!and!belief!in!life's!purpose.!Cognition,!129(2),!379–391.!http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.016!Wilson,!B.!R.!(1966).!Religion!in!a!Secular!Society.!Harmondsworth,!Middlesex,!U.K.:!Penguin!Books.!Wiltermuth,!S.!S.,!&!Heath,!C.!(2009).!Synchrony!and!cooperation.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!20(1),!1–5.!Xygalatas,!D.,!Mitkidis,!P.,!Fischer,!R.,!Reddish,!P.,!Skewes,!J.,!Geertz,!A.!W.,!et!al.!(2013).!Extreme!Rituals!Promote!Prosociality.!Personality$and$Social$Psychology$Review,!24(8),!1602–1605.!http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472910!Yuan,!K.CH.,!&!Bentler,!P.!M.!(2000).!Three!LikelihoodCBased!Methods!For!Mean!and!Covariance!Structure!Analysis!With!Nonnormal!Missing!Data.!Sociological$Methodology,!30(1),!165–200.!http://doi.org/10.1111/0081C1750.00078!Zuckerman,!P.!(2008).!Society!without!God:!What!the!least!religious!nations!can!tell!us!about!contentment.!New!York:!New!York!University!Press.!!! !! 172!Appendix,A:,!God$and$Purpose$Questions$(Chapters$2,$3,$4)$!God!1. I$believe$in$God.$2. I$believe$in$a$divine$being$who$is$involved$in$my$life.$3. There$is$no$god$or$higher$power$in$the$universe.$!Life’s!purpose!1. Things$in$my$life$happen$for$a$reason.$2. There$is$a$discernible$purpose$to$the$events$of$my$life.$3. Most$things$that$happen$to$me$are$random$or$coincidental.$!!Insecurity$Questions$(Chapter$3)$!Financial$security$1. How$often$do$you$feel$you$cannot$afford$to$buy$items$you$need?$2. How$often$do$you$worry$about$having$enough$money$in$the$future?$3. How$often$do$you$worry$about$what$your$household$financial$situation$will$be$like$in$12$months?$4. How$often$do$you$worry$about$losing$your$job?$$$$Physical$insecurity$1. How$often$do$you$feel$unsafe$walking$alone$on$your$local$area$after$dark?$$2. How$often$do$you$worry$about$being$burgled?$3. How$often$do$you$worry$about$being$a$victim$of$violent$crime?$!Welfare$and$social$security$1. How$much$do$you$feel$the$government$help$would$be$sufficient$if$you$lose$your$job?$2. Do$you$think$the$national$health$services$will$take$good$care$of$you$if$you$fall$sick?$3. How$confident$are$you$in$your$country’s$social$security$system?$$Wealth$inequality$1. How$much$do$you$think$people$who$start$out$poor$can$become$wealthy$if$they$work$hard$enough?$2. How$much$do$you$think$that$most$rich$people$acquire$their$wealth$by$some$illegal$methods?$3. How$much$do$you$think$there$is$too$large$of$a$gap$between$rich$and$poor?$$$$$$! 173!Trust$1. Generally$speaking,$how$much$would$you$say$that$most$people$can$be$trusted$or$that$you$need$to$be$very$careful$in$dealing$with$people?$$2. How$much$do$you$think$that$most$people$would$try$to$take$advantage$of$you$if$they$got$the$chance?$3. Would$you$say$that$most$of$the$time$people$try$to$be$helpful?$$$$$Antihscience$questions$(chapter$4)$!AntiCscience!views!1. I$trust$that$scientific$findings$are,$for$the$most$part,$correct$(R)$2. I$trust$my$intuition$more$than$scientific$evidence.$3. We$believe$too$often$in$science.$4. I$don't$believe$science$can$answer$most$questions$about$the$world.$!

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0166484/manifest

Comment

Related Items