Intuitive and Deliberative Empathizers and Systemizers

ObjectiveRecent findings suggest there may be some overlap between individual differences in orientations for intuitive thinking and empathizing, and between deliberative thinking and systemizing. This overlap is surprising, given that intuitive and deliberative thinking derive from dual-process theories that concern domain-general types of processing, whereas theoretically, empathizing and systemizing are domain-specific orientations for understanding people and lawful physical phenomena. MethodThe present studies (Study 1: N=2,789, Study 2: N=87; Finnish volunteers ages 15-69, 65% females) analyzed each of these four constructs using self-report as well as performance measures. ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis showed that systemizing was strongly and positively related to deliberative thinking and negatively related to intuitive thinking. Empathizing was negatively related to deliberative thinking, whereas no association between empathizing and intuition was found. However, some deliberative aspects and some intuitive aspects were involved in empathizing. ConclusionsThe findings indicate that a distinction between intuitive empathizing and deliberative systemizing is not warranted.Peer reviewe

Analytic atheism : A cross-culturally weak and fickle phenomenon?

Religious belief is a topic of longstanding interest to psychological science, but the psychology of religious disbelief is a relative newcomer. One prominently discussed model is analytic atheism, wherein cognitive reflection, as measured with the Cognitive Reflection Test, overrides religious intuitions and instruction. Consistent with this model, performance-based measures of cognitive reflection predict religious disbelief in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, & Democratic) samples. However, the generality of analytic atheism remains unknown. Drawing on a large global sample (N = 3461) from 13 religiously, demographically, and culturally diverse societies, we find that analytic atheism as usually assessed is in fact quite fickle cross-culturally, appearing robustly only in aggregate analyses and in three individual countries. The results provide additional evidence for culture's effects on core beliefs.Peer reviewe