↓ Skip to main content

Belief bias during reasoning among religious believers and skeptics

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
35 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Belief bias during reasoning among religious believers and skeptics
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13423-013-0394-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Derek J. Koehler, Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Abstract

We provide evidence that religious skeptics, as compared to believers, are both more reflective and effective in logical reasoning tasks. While recent studies have reported a negative association between an analytic cognitive style and religiosity, they focused exclusively on accuracy, making it difficult to specify potential underlying cognitive mechanisms. The present study extends the previous research by assessing both performance and response times on quintessential logical reasoning problems (syllogisms). Those reporting more religious skepticism made fewer reasoning errors than did believers. This finding remained significant after controlling for general cognitive ability, time spent on the problems, and various demographic variables. Crucial for the purpose of exploring underlying mechanisms, response times indicated that skeptics also spent more time reasoning than did believers. This novel finding suggests a possible role of response slowing during analytic problem solving as a component of cognitive style that promotes overriding intuitive first impressions. Implications for using additional processing measures, such as response time, to investigate individual differences in cognitive style are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 7%
Dominican Republic 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 83 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 60%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Unspecified 7 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 11 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#474,753
of 13,422,967 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#109
of 1,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,724
of 243,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,422,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.