Search

The psychological experience of existential isolation (EI) entails the awareness of an “unbridgeable gap” between oneself and other people and things in the world. The present work focuses on the experience of existential isolation from the outside world, broadly, rather than existential isolation from other people more specifically. Theory suggests there may be two important dimensions of this self-world existential isolation (SWEI). One such dimension would reflect an awareness of the unbridgeable gap, in the form of the general feeling of disconnection between one’s mind and the outside world (participatory gap; SWEI-PG). Another such dimension would reflect an awareness of the unbridgeable gap, in the form of the general feeling that one does not really know what the reality of the outside world is truly like (epistemic gap; SWEI-EG). The present research therefore has two goals: First, it seeks to explore the factor structure of a pool of 28 candidate items that may or may not reflect these SWEI component dimensions. Second, once the factor structure has been explored, the present study also seeks to explore the associations between the SWEI measure and various other epistemic variables—including ideological dogmatism; intellectual humility; mind wandering; dissociation; magical thinking, spirituality, and mental causation; personal need for structure; and tolerance for ambiguity. We will explore the same associations while controlling for self-other existential isolation (Pinel et al., 2017).

The psychological experience of existential isolation (EI) entails the awareness of an “unbridgeable gap” between oneself and other people and things in the world. The present work focuses on the experience of existential isolation from the outside world, broadly, rather than existential isolation from other people more specifically. Theory suggests there may be two important dimensions of this self-world existential isolation (SWEI). One such dimension would reflect an awareness of the unbridgeable gap, in the form of a general feeling of disconnection between one’s mind and the outside world (participatory gap; SWEI-PG). Another such dimension would reflect an awareness of the unbridgeable gap, in the form of the general feeling that one does not really know what the reality of the outside world is truly like (epistemic gap; SWEI-EG). The present research has two goals: First, it seeks to confirm the factor structure of a novel set of items proposed to measure the experience of self-world existential isolation. Second, the present study also seeks to explore the associations between the confirmed SWEI measure and various indicators of well-being—including negative mood, rumination, anxiety, depression, positive mood, satisfaction with life, meaning in life, authenticity, mindfulness, and hope. We will explore the same associations while controlling for self-other existential isolation (Pinel et al., 2017).

The psychological experience of existential isolation (EI) entails the awareness of an “unbridgeable gap” between oneself and other people and things in the world. The present work focuses on the experience of existential isolation from the outside world, broadly, rather than existential isolation from other people more specifically. Theory suggests there may be two important dimensions of this self-world existential isolation (SWEI). One such dimension would reflect an awareness of the unbridgeable gap, in the form of the general feeling of disconnection between one’s mind and the outside world (participatory gap; SWEI-PG). Another such dimension would reflect an awareness of the unbridgeable gap, in the form of the general feeling that one does not really know what the reality of the outside world is truly like (epistemic gap; SWEI-EG). The present research therefore has two goals: First, it seeks to explore the factor structure of a pool of 28 candidate items that may or may not reflect these SWEI component dimensions. Second, once the factor structure has been explored, the present study also seeks to explore the associations between the SWEI measure and various other epistemic variables—including ideological dogmatism; intellectual humility; mind wandering; dissociation; magical thinking, spirituality, and mental causation; personal need for structure; and tolerance for ambiguity. We will explore the same associations while controlling for self-other existential isolation (Pinel et al., 2017).

The present study seeks to explore the empirical relationship between implicit religious cognitions and other personality and individual difference variables. First, we developed a religious-concepts implicit association test (IAT), and will evaluate its internal psychometric properties and its ability to detect an implicit association. Second, we will examine the possible differences, between Christians and atheists, on 26 measures, as follows: 1. Religious IAT 2. Intuitive appeal of culturally-general religious concepts (e.g., a higher power). 3. Expressed belief in culturally-general religious concepts. 4. Big5—openness 5. Big5—conscientiousness 6. Big5—extroversion 7. Big5—agreeableness 8. Big5—neuroticism 9. Personal need for structure (PNS) 10. Experiences in close relationships (ECR; anxiety) 11. Experiences in close relationships (ECR; avoidance) 12. Self-esteem 13. Social desirability 14. Need-satisfaction – composite 15. Need-satisfaction – autonomy 16. Need-satisfaction – competence 17. Need-satisfaction – relatedness 18. Goal orientation 19. Self-construal – independent 20. Self-construal – interdependent 21. Demographic: Age 22. Demographic: Sex 23. Demographic: Race 24. Demographic: Ethnicity 25. Demographic: Education level 26. Demographic: Political orientation Third, we will examine the relationships between that religious IAT and the other personality and individual difference variables and the 6 demographic variables. Fourth, we will examine the possibility that those targeted relationships (between religious IAT and the personality and individual difference variables) also differed between Christians and atheists.

The present study seeks to explore the empirical relationship between implicit religious cognitions and other measures of both motivational and cognitive variables. First, we developed a religious-concepts implicit association test (IAT), and will evaluate its internal psychometric properties and its ability to detect an implicit association. Second, we will examine the possible differences, between Christians and atheists, on 22 measures, as follows: 1. Religious IAT 2. Intuitive appeal of culturally-general religious concepts (e.g., a higher power). 3. Expressed belief in culturally-general religious concepts. 4. Death-thought accessibility (DTA) 5. Death anxiety—composite 6. Death anxiety—self death 7. Death anxiety—self dying 8. Death anxiety—other death 9. Death anxiety—other dying 10. Presence of meaning in life 11. Search for meaning in life 12. Loneliness 13. Cognitive reflection test (CRT) 14. Rational-Experiential inventory (REI, composite) 15. Faith in intuition (REI Intuitive subscale) 16. Need for cognition (REI Analytic subscale) 17. Promiscuous teleological reasoning (Kelemen) 18. True teleology (Kelemen) 19. False teleology (Kelemen) 20. True cause (Kelemen) 21. False cause (Kelemen) 22. Demographic: Age 23. Demographic: Sex 24. Demographic: Race 25. Demographic: Ethnicity 26. Demographic: Education level 27. Demographic: Political orientation Third, we will examine the relationships between that religious IAT and the 21 other measures of relevant motivational and cognitive variables and the 6 demographic variables. Fourth, we will examine the possibility that those targeted relationships (between religious IAT and the motivational and cognitive variables) also differed between Christians and atheists.

PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The present study primarily seeks to explore the effect of cognitive load on intuitive processing and the expressed appeal-of vs. belief-in religious concepts among religious and atheist samples. First, we will examine the baselines and possible differences between Christians and atheists on the following: 1. 6 neutral filler/practice items (personal need for structure; PNS) 2. 6 items of intuitive appeal of culturally-general religious concepts (e.g., a higher power). 3. 6 items of expressed belief in culturally-general religious concepts. 4. 12 Cognitive reflection test (CRT) items 5. 65 items assessing promiscuous teleological reasoning (test items vs. control items [true teleology, false teology, true causal, and false causal statements]) 6. Demographics Second, we built a cognitive load task manipulation around the abovementioned variables (except demographics). Participants in the cognitive load condition will respond to each item, one at a time, while under a time-pressure and working memory load. Those in the no-load condition will similarly respond to each item, one at a time, without time pressure or working memory load. We will examine (across groups) whether the load manipulation had an impact on the abovementioned target measures (except the demographics, which will not be collected under load).. Third, we will examine the interactions between group (Christian vs. atheist) and cognitive load (yes vs. no) on the abovementioned target variables (hypotheses and analysis plans below). EXPLORATORY ELEMENT OF THE STUDY Additionally, as a secondary element, the present study also investigates whether the presumed effect of the time pressure and memory load task might only emerge if the verbal response format allows participants to give quick, simple, intuitive answers, such as a simple dichotomous true-false response to a statement. Presumably, paricipants could respond to items using true/false response option items by either taking the time and effort to carefully reflect on the statement and respond to it, or just quickly give an intuitive response. Thus, the load manipulation is expected to work well with the true/false format; participants in the no-load condition could take their time to think carefully and give reflective responses, whereas those in the load condition (time pressure/memory load) could just quickly give an intuitive true/false response. An alternative response option format is the commonly-used 6-point Likert-type scale (1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Slightly disagree, 4 Slightly agree, 5 Agree, 6 Strongly Agree). On the one hand, it is possible that a true/false and a 6-point Likert-type response option format wouild behave similarly, and thus be similarly susceptible to the influence of the cognitive load manipulation. On the other hand, it is also possible that an artifact of the Likert-type response option method is that it fundamentally requires additional and more reflective (analytic) steps to meaningfully complete the response; that is, participants may be unable to meaningfully complete the Likert-type item response without having taken the time and effort to read and process the response options, reflect on the valence of their response, reflect on the strength of the valence of their response, and give their response. Through that lens, compared to the simple true/false response option format, the Likert-type response option format might (by its nature) require a potentially slower, more complex, and more analytic/reflective process to even complete the response, and thus may be less susceptible to the intended effect of a time limit and a working memory load manipulation. Therefore, fourth, we will examine the possibility that verbal response option method (True/false vs. Likert-type) matters, by evaluating it as a moderator of the various possible effects of the cognitive load manipulation.

The present study seeks to explore the empirical relationship between implicit religious cognitions and other measures of both religious and scientific attitudes and behaviors. First, we developed a religious-concepts implicit association test (IAT), and will evaluate its internal psychometric properties and its ability to detect an implicit association. Second, we will examine the possible differences, between Christians and atheists, on 31 measures, as follows: 1. Religious IAT 2. Intuitive appeal of culturally-general religious concepts (e.g., a higher power). 3. Expressed belief in culturally-general religious concepts. 4. Intuitive appeal of basic religious concepts presented in culturally-Christian terms. 5. Intuitive appeal of basic religious concepts presented in culturally-Islamic terms. 6. Intuitive appeal of basic religious concepts presented in culturally-Hindu terms. 7. Expressed belief in basic religious concepts presented in culturally-Christian terms. 8. Expressed belief in basic religious concepts presented in culturally-Islamic terms. 9. Expressed belief in basic religious concepts presented in culturally-Hindu terms. 10. Intrinsic religiosity 11. Extrinsic religiosity 12. Christian orthodoxy 13. Religious fundamentalism 14. Quest religiosity 15. Behavior in past year: thought about God 16. Behavior in past year: prayed 17. Behavior in past year: attended church 18. Behavior in past year: read scripture 19. Behavior in past year: had spiritual experience 20. Behavior ever: believed in God 21. Behavior ever: prayed 22. Behavior ever: attended church 23. Behavior ever: read scripture 24. Behavior ever: had spiritual experience 25. Faith in science 26. Demographic: Age 27. Demographic: Sex 28. Demographic: Race 29. Demographic: Ethnicity 30. Demographic: Education level 31. Demographic: Political orientation Third, we will examine the relationships between that religious IAT and the 24 other measures of relevant religious and scientific attitudes and behaviors and the 6 demographic variables. Fourth, we will examine the possibility that those targeted relationships (between religious IAT and the 24 other measures of relevant religious and scientific attitudes and behaviors) also differed between Christians and atheists.