Why gods? A cognitive theory

Guthrie, Stewart

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511586330.004

Cited by 35 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies suggest that this predisposition is originated by a cognitive bias that leads people to search for causal relationships between actually unrelated facts. This bias is hypothesised to have an adaptive origin, leaning on a cognitive mechanism that allows people to feel control in uncertain situations (Guthrie 2001;Oliver & Wood 2014). Magic or religious accounts are one of the possible ways to increase feelings of control in uncertain conditions, as well as the attribution of responsibility to hidden actors who manipulate reality for their own profit.…”

Section: Determinants Of Conspiracism: a Set Of Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Believing in Conspiracy Theories: Evidence from an Exploratory Analysis of Italian Survey Data

Mancosu¹,

Vassallo²,

Vezzoni³

2017

South European Society and Politics

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Determinants Of Conspiracism: a Set Of Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Believing in Conspiracy Theories: Evidence from an Exploratory Analysis of Italian Survey Data

Mancosu¹,

Vassallo²,

Vezzoni³

2017

South European Society and Politics

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Guthrie (2001) used error management logic to explain one of the key features of religion-animism. He proposed that in ambiguous circumstances to falsely assume that an intentional agent (e.g., another human) has caused some event is less costly than to miss this fact.…”

Section: Biases In Interpersonal Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, if one encountered a collection of twigs arranged in an improbably neat array, Guthrie proposed that it would be better to entertain the thought that a human or other intentional agent was responsible for the arrangement-and to increase one's vigilance to the possibility of the agent's presence-than to casually ignore it. Guthrie (2001) and Atran and Norenzayan (in press) proposed that belief in gods may be a by-product of this adaptive bias. The proposed animacy bias is consistent with classic laboratory experiments conducted by Heider and Simmel (1944;see also Bloom & Veres, 1999).…”

Section: Biases In Interpersonal Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Those elements of culture best able to exploit the inherent biases of the mind will have the greatest probability of being retained and transmitted. In fact, tales of invisible gods who orchestrate the natural world, legends of dangerous serpents, stories of plagues, and taboos about meat all abound in the world's cultures (Atran, 2002;Atran & Norenzayan, in press;Fessler, 2002;Guthrie, 2001). …”

Section: Adaptive Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Paranoid Optimist: An Integrative Evolutionary Model of Cognitive Biases

Haselton

Nettle

2006

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

707

624

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human cognition is often biased, from judgments of the time of impact of approaching objects all the way through to estimations of social outcomes in the future. We propose these effects and a host of others may all be understood from an evolutionary psychological perspective. In this article, we elaborate error management theory (EMT;Haselton & Buss, 2000). EMT These two wisdoms seem contradictory. The first urges caution, whereas the second reminds us that we have nothing to lose and should throw caution to the wind. Yet both seem to capture aspects of human psychology. A person following both maxims would be a paranoid optimist, taking chances in some domains but simultaneously being fearful of certain kinds of harm. We argue, using insights from signal detection and error management theory (EMT), that there are good evolutionary reasons why the paranoid optimist mind could evolve. Furthermore, in which domains it is best to be paranoid and in which to be optimistic is predictable from the pattern of recurrent costs and benefits associated with decisions in that domain throughout our evolutionary history. This perspective suggests that one of the curiosities of human cognition-the fact that it seems riddled with biases-may be a functional feature of mechanisms for making judgments and decisions.Human cognition has often been shown to be biased. Perceivers underestimate the time-to-impact of approaching sounds (Neuhoff, 1998(Neuhoff, , 2001) and overestimate the connection between pictures of snakes and unpleasant outcomes such as electric shocks (Tomarken, Mineka, & Cook, 1989). People also appear to have a variety of positive illusions (Taylor & Brown, 1988), which cause them to overestimate the likelihood that they will succeed in spite of the adversity they face. Evidence in these domains and many others suggests that humans possess a multitude of biases, or propensities to adopt one belief on the basis of more slender evidence than would be required to believe in an alternative.Until recently, many psychologists have been content to describe these phenomena, their contexts of appearance, and possible implications, without much concern for their ultimate origin. As Krebs and Denton (1997) noted, in as much as explanation is needed, it tends to be proximate in nature. Psychologists argue that cognition is performed by a set of simple heuristic procedures, which are effective in many circumstances but prone to error in others (e.g., Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982;Miller & Ross, 1975). Or, in social domains, biases in judgment serve the proximate function of preserving self-esteem or subjective happiness for the ego-centered human animal (Crocker & Park, 2003;Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Pinel, 1993;Kunda, 1990). Researchers offer evoked biases as examples of just such imperfections. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2006, Vol. 10, No. 1, 47-66 Copyright © 2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 47We are grateful to Clark Barrett, Daniel Fessler, Mark Schaller and two reviewers for hel...

show abstract

“…Results like these point to what Guthrie [1993] has termed a hyperactive agent-detection device -a mechanism that biases people to detect agency in the environment even when agents do not really exist. Such a detection device may be partially responsible for why humans often attribute the occurrence of natural phenomena -including the weather, births, deaths, and human origins -to the minds of non-human agents, including gods [Guthrie, 2001]. …”

Section: Anchoring Creationist Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contradictory or Complementary? Creationist and Evolutionist Explanations of the Origin(s) of Species

Evans

Lane²

2011

Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost half of the US public rejects the idea that humans originated via evolution rather than by supernatural design. Moreover, studies demonstrate that even biology teachers have difficulty teaching their students about evolution, often including creationist explanations as well. A typical response to such findings is the argument that greater exposure to evolutionary theory would eliminate these unscientific alternatives. However, creationist ideas are not easily extinguished. Even after repeated exposure to evolutionary concepts, creationist ideas are more likely to be incorporated into hybrid frameworks along with evolutionary ideas, rather than completely rejected. Thus, members of the public often find these ideas complementary rather than contradictory. In this review, we apply dual-process theory to examine individuals’ understandings of the origins of species. We describe cognitive biases that operate at the intuitive-autonomous level (system 1), some of which, we argue, anchor belief in supernatural design, and others of which potentially anchor evolutionary ideas. At the other end of the continuum, reflective and abstract reasoning (system 2) processes are apparent in both scientific and theological explanations of origins. We conclude that presenting supernatural and natural explanations of biological origins as contradictory belies the way they function in everyday reasoning. By understanding the theological and the scientific arguments as well as the way most people intuitively reason about such existential questions, teachers might be better prepared to deal with these issues in the classroom.

show abstract

Why gods? A cognitive theory

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

Believing in Conspiracy Theories: Evidence from an Exploratory Analysis of Italian Survey Data

Believing in Conspiracy Theories: Evidence from an Exploratory Analysis of Italian Survey Data

The Paranoid Optimist: An Integrative Evolutionary Model of Cognitive Biases

Contradictory or Complementary? Creationist and Evolutionist Explanations of the Origin(s) of Species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About