IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v6y2016i1p2158244015623592.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Believes in the Giant Skeleton Myth? An Examination of Individual Difference Correlates

Author

Listed:
  • Viren Swami
  • Ulrich S. Tran
  • Stefan Stieger
  • Jakob Pietschnig
  • Ingo W. Nader
  • Martin Voracek

Abstract

This study examined individual difference correlates of belief in a narrative about the discovery of giant skeletal remains that contravenes mainstream scientific explanations. A total of 364 participants from Central Europe completed a survey that asked them to rate their agreement with a short excerpt describing the giant skeleton myth. Participants also completed measures of the Big Five personality factors, New Age orientation, anti-scientific attitudes, superstitious beliefs, and religiosity. Results showed that women, as compared with men, and respondents with lower educational qualifications were significantly more likely to believe in the giant skeleton myth, although effect sizes were small. Correlational analysis showed that stronger belief in the giant skeleton myth was significantly associated with greater anti-scientific attitudes, stronger New Age orientation, greater religiosity, stronger superstitious beliefs, lower Openness to Experience scores, and higher Neuroticism scores. However, a multiple regression showed that the only significant predictors of belief in myth were Openness, New Age orientation, and anti-scientific attitudes. These results are discussed in relation to the potential negative consequences of belief in myths.

Suggested Citation

  • Viren Swami & Ulrich S. Tran & Stefan Stieger & Jakob Pietschnig & Ingo W. Nader & Martin Voracek, 2016. "Who Believes in the Giant Skeleton Myth? An Examination of Individual Difference Correlates," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440156, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:1:p:2158244015623592
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244015623592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015623592
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244015623592?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:1:p:2158244015623592. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.