Recent research has indicated a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices. Here, we propose conflict detection as a mechanism underlying this relation, on the basis of the hypothesis that more-analytic people are less religious, in part, because they are more sensitive to conflicts between immaterial religious beliefs and beliefs about the material world. To examine cognitive conflict sensitivity, we presented problems containing stereotypes that conflicted with base-rate probabilities in a task with no religious content. In three studies, we found evidence that religiosity is negatively related to conflict detection during reasoning. Independent measures of analytic cognitive style also positively predicted conflict detection. The present findings provide evidence for a mechanism potentially contributing to the negative association between analytic thinking and religiosity, and more generally, they illustrate the insights to be gained from integrating individual-difference factors and contextual factors to investigate analytic reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Note that both base rates and stereotypes suggest the same response in congruent problems, and as such, participants would select the nonstereotypical/non-base-rate response for congruent problems very infrequently (De Neys & Glumicic, 2008). RTs for such “incorrect” congruent cases were therefore not considered for analysis.
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 136, 569–576.
Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004). Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 713–770.
Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539–546. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bulbulia, J., & Schjoedt, U. (2011). Toward an evolutionary social neuroscience of religion. Religion, Brain, & Behavior, 1, 220–222.
Bush, G., Luu, P., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Cognitive and emotional influence in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 215–222.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
Carter, C. S., & van Veen, V. (2007). Anterior cingulate cortex and conflict detection: An update of theory and data. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 367–379. doi:10.3758/CABN.7.4.367
Cheyne, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2013). Sleep paralysis postepisode distress: Modeling potential effects of episode characteristics, general psychological distress, beliefs, and cognitive style. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 135–148. doi:10.1177/2167702612466656
De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 28–38. doi:10.1177/1745691611429354
De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106, 1284–1299.
De Neys, W., Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2008). When our brains detect that we are biased. Psychological Science, 19, 483–489.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2009). How many dual process theories do we need: One, two, or many? In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 33–54). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (Eds.). (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.
Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science, 336, 493–496.
Huang, M. H., & Hauser, R. M. (1998). Trends in Black–White test score differentials: II. The WORDSUM vocabulary test. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and related measures (pp. 303–332). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Inzlicht, M., McGregor, I., Hirsh, J. B., & Nash, K. (2009). Neural markers of religious conviction. Psychological Science, 20, 385–392. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02305.x
Inzlicht, M., & Tullett, A. M. (2010). Reflecting on God: Religious primes can reduce neurophysiological response to errors. Psychological Science, 21, 1184–1190.
Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M., & Good, M. (2011a). The need to believe: A neuroscience account of religion as a motivated process. Religion, Brain, & Behavior, 1, 192–212.
Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M., & Good, M. (2011b). Existential neuroscience: A proximate explanation of religion as flexible meaning and palliative. Religion, Brain, & Behavior, 1, 244–251.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251. doi:10.1037/h0034747
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
Novemsky, N., & Kronzon, S. (1999). How are base-rates used, when they are used: A comparison of additive and Bayesian models of base-rate use. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 55–69.
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2013). Belief bias during reasoning among religious believers and skeptics. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0394-3
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123, 335–346. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2012). Are we good at detecting conflict during reasoning? Cognition, 124, 101–106. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.004
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2013). Dissociating conflict detection, response inhibition, and individual differences as sources of analytic engagement using a rapid-response base-rate task. Manuscript in preparation.
Schjoedt, U., & Bulbulia, J. (2011). The need to believe in conflicting propositions. Religion, Brain, & Behavior, 1, 236–238.
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in god. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141, 423–428.
Stanovich, K. E. (2004). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Is it time for a tri-process theory? Distinguishing the reflective and algorithmic mind. In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 127, 161–188. doi:10.1037/0096-3418.104.22.168
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665. disc. 665–726.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2006). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 225–247.
Svedholm, A. M., & Lindeman, M. (2013). The separate roles of the reflective mind and involuntary inhibitory control in gatekeeping paranormal beliefs and the underlying intuitive confusions. British Journal of Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02118.x
Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001
Thompson, V. A., Prowse Turner, J. A., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128, 237–251. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275–1289. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
We thank Marjaana Lindeman and Michiel van Elk for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Funding for this study was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Correspondence regarding this manuscript should be addressed to Gordon Pennycook, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo ON, Canada, N2L 3G1 or by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
(DOCX 141 kb)
About this article
Cite this article
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J.A., Barr, N. et al. Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection. Mem Cogn 42, 1–10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0340-7
- Cognitive style
- Dual-process theories
- Base-rate neglect
- Conflict detection
- Individual differences
- Inductive reasoning
- Social cognition