The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Individual differences in the mere willingness to think analytically has been shown to predict religious disbelief. Recently, however, it has been argued that analytic thinkers are not actually less religious; rather, the putative association may be a result of religiosity typically being measured after analytic thinking (an order effect). In light of this possibility, we report four studies in which a negative correlation between religious belief and performance on analytic thinking measures is found when religious belief is measured in a separate session. We also performed a meta-analysis on all previously published studies on the topic along with our four new studies (N = 15,078, k = 31), focusing specifically on the association between performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test (the most widely used individual difference measure of analytic thinking) and religious belief. This meta-analysis revealed an overall negative correlation (r) of -.18, 95% CI [-.21, -.16]. Although this correlation is modest, self-identified atheists (N = 133) scored 18.7% higher than religiously affiliated individuals (N = 597) on a composite measure of analytic thinking administered across our four new studies (d = .72). Our results indicate that the association between analytic thinking and religious disbelief is not caused by a simple order effect. There is good evidence that atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In summary, there appear to be at least three plausible contributors to religious disbelief: a lack of exposure to CREDs in the community while growing up, living under conditions of low existential threat, and a reliance on an analytic (vs. intuitive) cognitive style should all increase the likelihood of becoming a disbeliever.”
From The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality (2021) · cites this paper as [41]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“The use of more effortful and controlled System 2 processes (i.e., the propensity to engage in analytic thinking rather than relying on intuition) varies between individuals (e.g., Stanovich, 2012;Pennycook et al., 2016).”
From The detection of political deepfakes (2022) · cites this paper as Pennycook et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“Individuals have a general tendency to suspend effortful cognitive processes and to rely on associative processes and intuitions (e.g., Pennycook et al., 2016, reported that 65% gave an incorrect answer to the 'bat and ball' problem).”
From The detection of political deepfakes (2022) · cites this paper as Pennycook et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“Recent research has linked individual differences in analytic thinking with skepticism about various epistemically suspect information, such as fake news (Pennycook & Rand, 2019;2020), religious and paranormal beliefs (Pennycook et al., 2016;Shenhav et al., 2012), conspiracy theories (Swami et al., 2014), and pseudo-profound bullshit (Pennycook et al., 2015;Pennycook & Rand, 2020).”
From The detection of political deepfakes (2022) · cites this paper as Pennycook et al., 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making
Frederick, S. (2005) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/089533005775196732 · Cited by 5,256
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
(1985) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-03396-0 · Cited by 2,570
General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples
Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x0102100105 · Cited by 1,501
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography
Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003 · Cited by 1,132
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 · Cited by 2,022
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12476 · Cited by 879
What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001 · Cited by 508
Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005 · Cited by 324
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2020) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500007439 · Cited by 183
Metadata
- Authors
- Pennycook, G., Ross, R. M., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Pennycook, Gordon
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-04-07
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e0153039
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4824409
- OpenAlex
- W2317198474
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 7.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2017-04-21)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Keywords
- analytical thinking, religious beliefs, atheism, agnosticism, cognitive reflection, Cognitive Reflection Test, individual differences, order effects, reflective thinking, religiosity
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Religion, Thinking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
