Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Memory and Belief in the Transmission of Counterintuitive Content

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive scientists have increasingly turned to cultural transmission to explain the widespread nature of religion. One key hypothesis focuses on memory, proposing that that minimally counterintuitive (MCI) content facilitates the transmission of supernatural beliefs. We propose two caveats to this hypothesis. (1) Memory effects decrease as MCI concepts become commonly used, and (2) people do not believe counterintuitive content readily; therefore additional mechanisms are required to get from memory to belief. In experiments 1–3 (n = 283), we examined the relationship between MCI, belief, and memory. We found that increased tendencies to anthropomorphize predicted poorer memory for anthropomorphic-MCI content. MCI content was found less believable than intuitive content, suggesting different mechanisms are required to explain belief. In experiment 4 (n = 70), we examined the non-content-based cultural learning mechanism of credibility-enhancing displays (CREDs) and found that it increased participants’ belief in MCI content, suggesting this type of learning can better explain the transmission of belief.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Prodigies are anecdotes or microstories about transgressions in the natural order of the cosmos. Prodigies were reported to the Senate, who decided which were genuine and should be recorded.

  2. Elsewhere we have hypothesized that most religious concepts, and concepts that are labeled as MCI, are actually supported by core intuitions about the world rather than being violations of those intuitions (Purzycki & Willard 2015; Willard & Norenzayan 2013).

  3. Since each story could be intuitive, anthropomorphic-MCI, or physical-MCI, and story type was randomized, the total number of concepts did not differ across content type even though it did differ by story.

  4. Using a multilevel logistic regression with random intercepts for each individual we can show that these effects do not change when we control for age, gender, ethnicity, and religious affiliation. MCI items are significantly more memorable than intuitive items after 5 min (z = 4.98, p < 0.001; Odds: 1.77, 95%CI: 1.41 to 2.21) and one week (z = 3.51, p < 0.001; Odds: 1.66, 95%CI: 1.25 to 2.21). Belief was similarly modeled. Belief changed an average of −3.08 (95 % CI −3.39 to −2.77; t 81.00 = −19.46, p < 0.001, d = −9.26) points on a seven-point scale between intuitive items and MCI items after 5 min, and −3.46 (95%CI: −3.60 to −3.32; t 165.40 = −49.53, p < 0.001) after one week.

  5. Using a multilevel model with random intercepts for each individual, belief is associated with a change of −1.59 (95%CI: −1.67 to −1.39; t 105.29 = −15.65; p < 0.001) points on a seven-point scale when comparing MCI and intuitive stories after 5 min, and an average of −1.58 (95%CI: −1.85 to −1.32; t 118.70 = 11.77, p < 0.001) points on seven-point scale after 1 week.

References

  • Atran, S. (2002). In gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., & Henrich, J. (2010). The evolution of religion: how cognitive by-products, adaptive learning heuristics, ritual displays, and group competition generate deep commitments to prosocial religions. Biological Theory, 5(1), 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004a). Religion’s evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, committment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 713–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004b). Why minds create gods: devotion, deception, death, and arational decision making. [reply to commentators]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 754–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, J. L. (2004). Why would anyone believe in God? Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, J. L. (2008a). Coding and quantifying counterintuitiveness in religious concepts: theoretical and methodological reflections. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 20(4), 308–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, J. L. (2008b). Why Santa Claus is not a god. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8(1), 149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, J. L., & Nyhof, M. A. (2001). Spreading nonnatural concepts. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1, 69–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, B., Moehlmann, B., & Boyer, P. (2006). Extending the testimony problem: evaluating the truth, scope, and source of cultural information. Child Development, 77(3), 531–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, P. (2003). Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, P., & Ramble, C. (2001). Cognitive templates for religious concepts: cross-cultural evidence for recall of counter-intuitive representations. Cognitive Science, 25, 535–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, W. F. (1985). The story schema: universal and culture-specific properties. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning (pp. 167–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Psychological Science, 19, 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008b). When we need a human: motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26, 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonce, L. O., Upal, M. A., Slone, D. J., & Tweney, D. R. (2006). Role of context in the recall of counterintuitive concepts. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, 521–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. L., & Koenig, M. A. (2006). Trust in testimony: how children learn about science and religion. Child Development, 77(3), 505–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(244–260), 244–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (1998). The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 215–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & Gil-White, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2003). The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12(12), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, V. A. (1995). Relative association, interactiveness, and the bizarre imagery effect. The American Journal of Psychology, 108(1), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lisdorf, A. (2004). The spread of non-natural concepts. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., DeLosh, E. L., May, C. P., & Brady, P. (1995). The bizarreness effect: it’s not surprising, it’s complex. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 422–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Dunbar, R. (2006). A bias for social information in human cultural transmission. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 405–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norenzayan, A. (2013). Big gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norenzayan, A., Atran, S., Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2006). Memory and mystery: the cultural selection of minimally counterintuitive narratives. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 531–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purzycki, B. G. (2010). Cognitive architecture, humor and counterintuitiveness: retention and recall of MCIs. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purzycki, B. G., & Sosis, R. (2011). Our gods: variation in supernatural minds. In U. J. Frey, C. Störmer, & K. P. Willführ (Eds.), Essential building blocks of human nature (pp. 77–93). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Purzycki, B. G., & Willard, A. K. (2015). MCI theory: a critical discussion. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 1–42.

  • Pyysiäinen, I., Lindeman, M., & Honkela, T. (2003). Counterintuitiveness as the hallmark of religiosity. Religion, 33(4), 341–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riefer, D., & Lamay, M. (1998). Memory for common and bizarre stimuli: a storage-retrieval analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(2), 312–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. C. (1995). Memory in oral traditions: The cognitive psychology of epic, ballads, and counting-out rhymes. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Y. I., & Gobet, F. (2013). What is counterintuitive? Religious cognition and natural expectation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(4), 715–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shariff, A. F., Purzycki, B. G., & Sosis, R. (2014). Religions as cultural solutions to social living. In A. B. Cohen (Ed.), Culture reexamined (pp. 217–238). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traub, R. E., & Rowley, G. L. (1991). Understanding reliability. ITEMS, 10, 37–45.

  • Upal, M. A. (2010). An alternative account of the minimal counterintuitiveness effect. Cognitive Systems Research, 11(2), 194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upal, M. A., Gonce, L. O., Tweney, R. D., & Slone, D. J. (2007). Contextualizing counterintuitiveness: how context affects comprehension and memorability of counterintuitive concepts. Cognitive Science, 31(3), 415–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010b). Making sense by making sentient: effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 410–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992). Cognitive development: foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 337–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willard, A. K., & Norenzayan, A. (2013). Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose. Cognition, 129(2), 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaragoza, M. S., & Mitchell, K. J. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and the creation of false memories. Psychological Science, 7(5), 294–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Benjamin Purzycki and Adam Baimel for their helpful comments. JH would like to thank the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and NYU’s Stern School of Business. AN acknowledges support from a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Grant (435-2014-0456). We also thank the Cultural Evolution of Religion Research Consortium, funded by a generous partnership grant (895-2011-1009) also from SSHRC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, 116 Inner Campus Dr Stop G6000, Austin, TX, 78712-0187, USA

    Aiyana K. Willard

  2. Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Joseph Henrich

  3. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Ara Norenzayan

Authors
  1. Aiyana K. Willard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph Henrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ara Norenzayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aiyana K. Willard.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 67.1 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Willard, A.K., Henrich, J. & Norenzayan, A. Memory and Belief in the Transmission of Counterintuitive Content. Hum Nat 27, 221–243 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-016-9259-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-016-9259-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation