Activating analytical thinking does not seem to reduce a person’s religious beliefs. This finding provides evidence against the common idea that relying on logic directly reduces faith. The results of this study were recently published in the journal Psychology of religion and spirituality.
The study was carried out by Luz Acera Martini, a postdoctoral researcher and doctoral candidate in psychology at the National Council for Scientific and Technological Research, and Esteban Fraidin, a researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research with a doctorate in philosophy. Both scientists are affiliated with the National University of Southern Argentina. They sought to investigate exactly how cognitive style influences beliefs.
Previous research in the cognitive science of religion has suggested that analytical thinking can suppress the basic spiritual intuitions that make religious beliefs appealing. Many psychologists believe that human reasoning relies on two major systems. One system is fast and intuitive, the other is slow and analytical.
Several past experiments have shown that exposing people to tasks that encourage slow, logical thinking can reduce their reported religious beliefs. This concept assumes that faith relies heavily on quick intuition. It was believed that using your logical brain would override your religious intuition.
However, scientists have had trouble replicating these past findings. Many follow-up experiments found no effect on beliefs. Some studies even found that logical tasks increase religiosity.
Because previous studies had produced such mixed results, Acera Martini and Freidin wanted to test the concept using a more reliable method. They aimed to determine whether past discrepancies were due to weak experimental designs. They also wondered if their original hypothesis was simply wrong.
“This research is part of my doctoral thesis project, which explores the relationship between reasoning and religious beliefs from the perspective of the cognitive science of religion,” Acela Martini said. “My supervisor and I place great value on experimental research, and we realized that the existing literature on the association between cognitive styles and religious beliefs contained some unexplored areas.”
Acera Martini explained that the authors wanted to go beyond basic correlation observations. Although correlational studies often show a negative association between analytical thinking and faith, it has not been proven that one causes the other.
“We felt these were essential to go beyond the typical correlational finding of a negative association between analytical cognitive style and religious beliefs and establish a clearer relationship between these variables,” she said. “This is especially relevant given recent advances in best practices resulting from the reproducibility crisis in psychology and the increased emphasis on open science.”
To explore this topic, researchers conducted two separate studies. The first study was designed to find out which psychological tasks are actually successful in increasing analytical thinking. The authors recruited 455 Spanish-speaking college students in Argentina. They randomly assigned these students to one of three groups.
One group completed a task in which they reconstructed scrambled sentences containing words related to inferences. Another group completed a debiasing training task.
In the debiasing training task, participants answered questions designed to induce common logical fallacies, or inferential errors. They then received feedback explaining the correct answer and the nature of their cognitive bias.
The third group served as a control. These participants simply described everyday objects.
After completing the assigned task, all participants took a cognitive reflex test. This test includes math and oral text problems with intuitive but inaccurate answers. To get the right answer, people need to overcome their initial instinctive reactions and think deeply.
The researchers found that only the debiasing training task was successful in improving cognitive reflexivity test scores. The scrambled sentence task failed to improve analytical thinking compared to the control group.
Now that they have an effective tool to stimulate logical thinking, researchers have begun a second large-scale study. The second study involved 938 Argentine university students from a variety of academic disciplines.
The goal of the second study was to see if successful analysis tasks changed religious beliefs. The researchers randomly assigned participants to either a group that completed a debiasing training task or a control group that did not complete the task at all.
Next, participants completed a questionnaire measuring their religious beliefs. One survey measured intuitive religious beliefs and recorded general beliefs and supernatural thoughts.
A separate questionnaire measured religious beliefs in context. This scale asked participants to rate the likelihood that certain events would occur to unknown people due to divine intervention or miracles.
The researchers also measured several individual characteristics that they thought could influence the results. They measured cognitive need, or the extent to which a person enjoys participating in effortful mental activities.
They also assessed how participants viewed the relationship between science and religion. Finally, they measured the metacognitive ambiguity of participants’ religious beliefs. This means how certain or uncertain individuals feel about their faith.
The scientists found no meaningful differences in religious beliefs between the group that completed the analytical thinking task and the control group. A destigmatization training task did not reduce self-reported religiosity on any measure of religious beliefs.
Statistical tests suggested that the potential difference between groups was essentially zero. Activation of analytical thinking had no noticeable effect on faith.
“Ultimately, our findings suggest that the connection between how we think and what we believe is much more complex than simple headlines often suggest,” Acela-Martini said.
“This means that for the average person, ‘thinking more analytically’ is not a magic switch that instantly or easily changes one’s religious beliefs, at least not in the way it is often described,” she explained.
The scientists also investigated whether the individual characteristics they measured influenced the results. For example, they hypothesized that analytical thinking could reduce faith for people who view science and religion as contradictory.
On the other hand, the researchers thought that analytical thinking could increase faith among people who believe that science and religion go hand in hand. Researchers found no evidence to support these ideas.
A person’s cognitive needs and views on science and religion do not change the impact of analytical tasks. The level of conviction a person has about his or her faith also made no difference. The lack of effect remained consistent across samples.
“We had some idea what was going to happen, but we were surprised that there was no moderation effect,” Acella Martini said.
“In such studies, one might typically expect the priming intervention to affect different parts of the sample in different ways,” she noted.
“But what really stood out was the striking uniformity of the lack of effect across the board,” Acela-Martini explained. “This consistency was particularly unexpected given the wide range of effects reported so far in the experimental literature.”
This finding suggests that short-term interventions aimed at increasing analytical thinking cannot easily change deeply ingrained religious beliefs. This suggests that previous studies claiming direct effects may have relied on unreliable methods or statistical chance.
This study has some limitations. For example, the authors rely entirely on university students. Students tend to exhibit higher levels of analytical thinking than the general population.
The sample consisted of Argentinian university students, so the results may look different in other cultures. Results may also differ within communities where communal religious practices are stronger.
Another limitation is that the debiasing training task produced a relatively modest increase in analytical thinking. Although this task was found to be effective, the overall impact on mental processes was small.
The researchers suggest that future research should examine how the association between cognitive styles and beliefs develops during childhood and adolescence. They suspect that analytical thinking influences religious beliefs early in life, when personal values are still forming.
“Beyond the results themselves, I think it’s important to recognize that scientific methodology is constantly evolving,” Asela-Martini noted. “The peer review process adds immense value and serves as an important quality control that ensures the integrity of our work.”
Acera Martini emphasized the importance of sharing findings that cannot support general hypotheses.
“It is also important to normalize the publication of invalid results (where no direct positive effect is observed). Transparency is even greater thanks to pre-registered reporting,” she said. “A null result is not a dead end; it simply shifts the focus to a new, more clearly defined question.”
She further elaborated on what those new questions mean. “For example, our research suggests that an important next step is to investigate these relationships in young populations to understand how the link between reflection and belief actually develops early in life,” she said.
“Nonetheless, this area still requires further investigation, as there may be other relevant moderators that were not captured in this study but may be important for future research,” she added.
The study, “Assessing the Impact of Increased Analytical Thinking on Religious Beliefs,” was authored by Luz Acera Martini and Esteban Freidin.
