IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v20y2025ip-_13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Reflection and Religious Belief: A Test of Two Models

Author

Listed:
  • Şeker, Fırat
  • Acem, Ensar
  • Bayrak, Fatih
  • Dogruyol, Burak
  • Isler, Ozan
  • Bahçekapili, Hasan G.
  • Yilmaz, Onurcan

Abstract

Existing research suggests a negative correlation between reflective thinking and religious belief. The dual process model (DPM) posits that reflection diminishes religious belief by limiting intuitive decisions. In contrast, the expressive rationality model (ERM) argues that reflection serves an identity-protective function by bolstering rather than modifying preexisting beliefs. Although the current literature tends to favor the DPM, many studies suffer from unbalanced samples. To avoid this limitation, we recruited comparably large number of participants for both religious believers (n = 580) and non-believers (n = 594) and observed the relationship between reflection and two measures of religious belief: belief in God and disbelief in evolution. Our findings corroborate the negative associations found between higher levels of reflection and both types of belief, independent of religious affiliation. Our results align with the broader literature, supporting the DPM but not the ERM.

Suggested Citation

  • Şeker, Fırat & Acem, Ensar & Bayrak, Fatih & Dogruyol, Burak & Isler, Ozan & Bahçekapili, Hasan G. & Yilmaz, Onurcan, 2025. "Cognitive Reflection and Religious Belief: A Test of Two Models," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20, pages 1-1, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:20:y:2025:i::p:-_13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029752400041X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:20:y:2025:i::p:-_13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.