Suppr超能文献

你为何如此确定?宗教与非宗教中的教条主义、原教旨主义、分析性思维、观点采择与道德关怀

What Makes You So Sure? Dogmatism, Fundamentalism, Analytic Thinking, Perspective Taking and Moral Concern in the Religious and Nonreligious.

作者信息

Friedman Jared Parker, Jack Anthony Ian

机构信息

Department of Philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Inamori International Center for Ethics and Excellence, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

出版信息

J Relig Health. 2018 Feb;57(1):157-190. doi: 10.1007/s10943-017-0433-x.

Abstract

Better understanding the psychological factors related to certainty in one's beliefs (i.e., dogmatism) has important consequences for both individuals and social groups. Generally, beliefs can find support from at least two different routes of information processing: social/moral considerations or analytic/empirical reasoning. Here, we investigate how these two psychological constructs relate to dogmatism in two groups of individuals who preferentially draw on the former or latter sort of information when forming beliefs about the world-religious and nonreligious individuals. Across two studies and their pooled analysis, we provide evidence that although dogmatism is negatively related to analytic reasoning in both groups of individuals, it shares a divergent relationship with measures of moral concern depending on whether one identifies as religious or not. Study 1 showed that increasing levels of dogmatism were positively related to prosocial intentions among the religious and negatively related to empathic concern among the nonreligious. Study 2 replicated and extended these results by showing that perspective taking is negatively related to dogmatism in both groups, an effect which is particularly robust among the nonreligious. Study 2 also showed that religious fundamentalism was positively related to measures of moral concern among the religious. Because the current studies used a content-neutral measure to assess dogmatic certainty in one's beliefs, they have the potential to inform practices for most effectively communicating with and persuading religious and nonreligious individuals to change maladaptive behavior, even when the mode of discourse is unrelated to religious belief.

摘要

更好地理解与个人信念确定性相关的心理因素(即教条主义)对个人和社会群体都具有重要意义。一般来说,信念可以从至少两种不同的信息处理途径中获得支持:社会/道德考量或分析/实证推理。在此,我们调查了这两种心理结构如何与两类个体的教条主义相关,这两类个体在形成关于世界的信念时,一类优先依赖前者,另一类优先依赖后者——宗教人士和非宗教人士。通过两项研究及其汇总分析,我们提供了证据表明,尽管教条主义在这两类个体中都与分析推理呈负相关,但根据个体是否认同宗教,它与道德关怀的衡量指标存在不同的关系。研究1表明,教条主义程度的增加在宗教人士中与亲社会意图呈正相关,在非宗教人士中与共情关怀呈负相关。研究2通过表明观点采择在两类个体中都与教条主义呈负相关,复制并扩展了这些结果,这一效应在非宗教人士中尤为显著。研究2还表明,宗教原教旨主义在宗教人士中与道德关怀的衡量指标呈正相关。由于当前的研究使用了一种内容中立的测量方法来评估个人信念中的教条确定性,它们有可能为最有效地与宗教和非宗教个体沟通并说服他们改变适应不良行为的实践提供信息,即使话语模式与宗教信仰无关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验