Abstract: The negative association between cognitive intelligence (CI) and religiosity has been widely studied and is now well documented. In contrast, the role of emotional intelligence (EI) in this context has been poorly investigated thus far. Some available data indicate that EI, unlike CI, correlates positively with religiosity. To date, however, no study has explored the relationship between religiosity and both intelligences simultaneously. In current studies (Ns = 301 and 200), we examined the interplay between all three constructs. The results showed that CI was positively correlated with ability EI and negatively with some measures of religiosity. EI, on the other hand, revealed no direct, significant relationship with religiosity. However, when combined into a single regression model with CI, EI became a significant positive predictor of religiosity. Moreover, Study 2 revealed that the link between EI and religiosity was mediated by empathy. Interestingly, we also found a reciprocal suppression between CI and EI, since both predictors increased their influence on religiosity when analyzed together. Although the suppression was present in both studies, it was observed for different religiosity measures in each case, indicating that this effect is probably dependent on various factors, such as sample structure or type of religiosity.
Keywords: Religiosity Belief Cognitive intelligence Emotional intelligence Empathy
General Discussion
In the present research, we examined the relationship between ability EI, cognitive intelligence, and religiosity. Hypothesis 1 stating that cognitive intelligence
would be negatively related to religiosity was confrmed for some of the religious
scales (e.g., centrality of religiosity in Study 1 and religious fundamentalism in
Study 2). It is worth noting that the associations between religious fundamentalism
and intelligence tests were more pronounced than correlations observed for other
religiosity measures—both in our research and in previous studies (e.g., Lewis et al.
2011). Therefore, it seems that this particular type of religiosity is the most difcult to reconcile with high cognitive abilities. Interestingly, it is usually believed that
intelligence infuences (or at least precedes) religiosity (Zuckerman et al. 2013). For
instance, some authors argue that intelligent individuals are less willing to engage
in more instinctive, evolved types of behavior (Dutton and Van der Linden 2017;
Kanazawa 2012). In contrast, they tend to favor some counter-instinctive behaviors—e.g., they undertake nocturnal activities or have a taste for complex instrumental music. In those evolutionary accounts, religion is also considered an evolved
and adaptive pattern that enhances a sense of community and provides stress relief.
Thus, assuming that religion is a relatively old universal instinct, intelligent individuals are more likely to be atheist (Dutton and Van der Linden 2017). However,
in the case of religious fundamentalism, it has been also argued that this religious
feature might actually exert an efect on intelligence by opposing secular knowledge
and education (Sherkat 2010, 2011). Thus, the direction of the causal relationship
between these two constructs remains unknown and should be established using longitudinal research.
Hypothesis 2 concerning the positive link between EI and religiosity was not supported since none of the positive zero-order correlations between EI and religiosity
dimensions were statistically signifcant (with the exception of public practice subdimension in Study 1). Additionally, we found that EI was positively associated with
Cattell’s score in Study 1 and general intelligence factor in Study 2, which supported
Hypothesis 3.
Next, Hypothesis 4 received a partial support. Specifcally, in Study 1 EI became
a signifcant and positive predictor of centrality of religiosity when analyzed jointly
in a single regression model with cognitive intelligence. In Study 2, we did not
directly replicate this efect on the exact same measure, but we found a similar suppression efect for the scale measuring belief in God/Higher Power. Furthermore, the
suppression, albeit weak, did occur also on pooled data from Studies 1 and 2. Thus,
from this pattern of fndings, it seems reasonable to conclude that cognitive intelligence indeed acted as a suppressor of the EI–religion relationship. This fnding suggests that ability EI constitutes a blend of rational and intuitive mechanisms (both
inversely related to religiosity) and may explain, to a certain extent, why zero-order
correlations between religiosity and EI are not signifcant in some studies (including
current ones). It is possible that removing the variance related to abstract reasoning
reveals the intuitive, empathetic part of EI (see Mayer and Geher 1996) and this part
shows a more pronounced association with religiosity. In fact, this notion was also
supported in Study 2 which showed that empathy mediated the EI–belief link.
Finally, the current study revealed also some interesting fndings regarding cognitive intelligence. First, we found evidence for cooperative suppression: In all cases
where EI became more strongly associated with religiosity, the cognitive ability
(negative) relation to religiosity was also more pronounced in regression models. It
seems then that removing the EI aspect from cognitive ability increased its negative
association with religious belief. It is possible that this remaining part of cognitive
ability refects “cool” and rational reason, not infuenced by afect or empathy. Such
an analytic cognitive approach may signifcantly hamper beliefs in religious tenets
since they often defy logic or violate the laws of nature (cf. Pennycook et al. 2012).
The current research has several limitations. First, the present studies had a crosssectional character, which did not enable us to establish causal relationships between
investigated variables. Although in the research literature there are some suggestions
regarding the direction of the cognitive intelligence–religiosity link (Zuckerman
et al. 2013), the causality is not yet clear in the case of the relationship between
EI and religion. Clearly, then, more work in this context—including longitudinal
research—is needed to deepen our understanding of the interplay between religiosity, EI, and cognitive intelligence. Moreover, although we extended the scope of
previous research by examining the potential mediating role of emotional empathy,
it might be desirable to also examine an impact of other variables that have been
found to have signifcance for both intelligences and religion, such as time perspectives (see Łowicki et al. 2018; Stolarski et al. 2011; Zajenkowski et al. 2016). Next,
it should be emphasized that both current samples were mostly composed of Roman
Catholics and included Polish participants only. To increase the generalizability of
the obtained results, future work should examine other denominations, preferably
in non-Western societies. Finally, it needs to be acknowledged that we failed to replicate the main fnding using the exact same measure of religiosity across the two
studies. Instead, we found the suppression efect on diferent instruments measuring religiosity. As suggested above, this might be due to various factors such as the
weak magnitude of the observed efects or sample specifcity (cf. Webser and Dufy
2016). Nevertheless, our research provides some observations that might be helpful in future studies exploring the interplay between cognitive and emotional intelligence and religiosity. First, one needs to carefully consider the structure and size
of the sample. It seems that the efects of both intelligences on religiosity are rather
small, and therefore an adequate statistical power is required to detect them. Second,
taking into consideration some signifcant diferences between measures of religiosity, various aspects of religious phenomena (e.g., belief in God, fundamentalism,
interest in religion) should be included in the studies on cognitive and emotional
intelligence.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment