title: Belief bias during reasoning among religious believers and skeptics.
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.
authors: Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Canada. gpennyco@uwaterloo.ca
authors: Gordon
authors: G
authors: Pennycook
authors: James Allan
authors: JA
authors: Cheyne
authors: Derek J
authors: DJ
authors: Koehler
authors: Jonathan A
authors: JA
authors: Fugelsang
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008128:Logic; D008297:Male; D012069:Religion and Psychology; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D013850:Thinking / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references: Cogn Psychol. 2011 Nov;63(3):107-40
references: 21798215
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255-78
references: 18154502
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Oct;23(5):645-65; discussion 665-726
references: 11301544
references: Science. 2012 Apr 27;336(6080):493-6
references: 22539725
references: Cognition. 1989 Mar;31(2):117-40
references: 2721132
references: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1248-99
references: 17631876
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Apr;94(4):672-95
references: 18361678
references: Br J Psychol. 2013 Aug;104(3):303-19
references: 23848383
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Jun;59(6):1070-100
references: 16885144
references: Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):428-33
references: 16683931
references: Cognition. 2012 Jun;123(3):335-46
references: 22481051
references: Psychol Rev. 2000 Oct;107(4):852-84
references: 11089409
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 Aug;141(3):423-8
references: 21928924
references: Mem Cognit. 1989 Jan;17(1):11-7
references: 2913452