Cognitive load task - Religiosity, CRT, teleological reasoning

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.