Case
Western Reserve University
Dogmatic
individuals hold confidently to their beliefs, even when experts disagree and
evidence contradicts them.
New
research from Case Western Reserve University may help explain the extreme
perspectives, on religion, politics and more, that seem increasingly prevalent
in society.
Two
studies examine the personality characteristics that drive dogmatism in the
religious and nonreligious. They show there are both similarities and important
differences in what drives dogmatism in these two groups.
In
both groups, higher critical reasoning skills were associated with lower levels
of dogmatism. But these two groups diverge in how moral concern influences
their dogmatic thinking.
"It
suggests that religious individuals may cling to certain beliefs, especially
those which seem at odds with analytic reasoning, because those beliefs
resonate with their moral sentiments," said Jared Friedman, a PhD student
in organizational behavior and co-author of the studies.
"Emotional
resonance helps religious people to feel more certain -- the more moral
correctness they see in something, the more it affirms their thinking,"
said Anthony Jack, associate professor of philosophy and co-author of the
research. "In contrast, moral concerns make nonreligious people feel less
certain."
This understanding may suggest a way to effectively communicate with the extremes, the researchers say. Appealing to a religious dogmatist's sense of moral concern and to an anti-religious dogmatist's unemotional logic may increase the chances of getting a message through -- or at least some consideration from them.
The
research is published in the Journal of Religion and Health.
Extreme positions
While more empathy may sound desirable, untempered empathy can be dangerous, Jack said. "Terrorists, within their bubble, believe it's a highly moral thing they're doing. They believe they are righting wrongs and protecting something sacred."
In
today's politics, Jack said, "with all this talk about fake news, the
Trump administration, by emotionally resonating with people, appeals to members
of its base while ignoring facts." Trump's base includes a large
percentage of self-declared religious men and women.
At
the other extreme, despite organizing their life around critical thinking,
militant atheists, "may lack the insight to see anything positive about
religion; they can only see that it contradicts their scientific, analytical
thinking," Jack said.
The
studies, based on surveys of more than 900 people, also found some similarities
between religious and non-religious people. In both groups the most dogmatic
are less adept at analytical thinking, and also less likely to look at issues
from other's perspectives.
In
the first study, 209 participants identified as Christian, 153 as nonreligious,
nine Jewish, five Buddhist, four Hindu, one Muslim and 24 another religion.
Each completed tests assessing dogmatism, empathetic concern, aspects of
analytical reasoning, and pro-social intentions.
The
results showed religious participants as a whole had a higher level of
dogmatism, empathetic concern and prosocial intentions, while the nonreligious
performed better on the measure of analytic reasoning. Decreasing empathy among
the nonreligious corresponded to increasing dogmatism.
The
second study, which included 210 participants who identified as Christian, 202
nonreligious, 63 Hindu, 12 Buddhist, 11 Jewish, 10 Muslim and 19 other
religions, repeated much of the first but added measures of perspective-taking
and religious fundamentalism.
The
more rigid the individual, whether religious or not, the less likely he or she
would consider the perspective of others. Religious fundamentalism was highly
correlated with empathetic concern among the religious.
Two brain networks
The researchers say the results of the surveys lend further support to their earlier work showing people have two brain networks -- one for empathy and one for analytic thinking -- that are in tension with each other. In healthy people, their thought process cycles between the two, choosing the appropriate network for different issues they consider.
But
in the religious dogmatist's mind, the empathetic network appears to dominate
while in the nonreligious dogmatist's mind, the analytic network appears to
rule.
While
the studies examined how differences in world-view of the religious vs. the
nonreligious influence dogmatism, the research is broadly applicable, the
researchers say.
Dogmatism
applies to any core beliefs, from eating habits -- whether to be a vegan,
vegetarian or omnivore -- to political opinions and beliefs about evolution and
climate change. The authors hope this and further research will help improve
the divide in opinions that seems increasingly prevalent.