The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

8/13/2019 The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

1/53

Personality and Social PsychologyReview

he Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed ExplanatiMiron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman and Judith A. HallPers Soc Psychol Rev ublished online ! August "#$%

Published by&

'n behal( o(&

Society (or Personality and Social Psychology

))'nline*irst +ersion o( Record Aug !, "#$%

-hat is his/
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.full.pdfhttp://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.full.pdfhttp://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.full.pdf


2/53

PSRcle2013 7266 XXX10.1177/1088868313497266Personality and Social Psycholoy Re!ie"Zuckerman et al.

Article

The Relation Between Intelligence andReligiosity: A Meta-Analysis and SomeProosed !"lanations

Miron Zuckerman#$ %ordan Sil&erman

#$ and %udith A. 'all

(

Personality and Social Psycholoy Re!ie"

XX#X$ 1%30

& 2013 'y the Society (or Personality

and Social Psycholoy) *nc.

Re+rints and +er,issions-

sae+'.co,/ornalsPer,issions.na!*- 10.1177/1088868313497266

+s+r.sae+'.co,

A&stract ,etaanalysis o( 63 stdies sho"ed a sini(icant neati!e association 'et"een intellience and reliiosity. he association

"as stroner (or collee stdents and the eneral +o+lation than (or +artici+ants yoner than collee ae5 it "as also

stroner (or reliios 'elie(s than reliios 'eha!ior. or collee stdents and the eneral +o+lation) ,eans o( "eihted

and n"eihted correlations 'et"een intellience and the strenth o( reliios 'elie(s raned (ro, .20 to .2 #,ean r

.24$. hree +ossi'le inter+retations "ere discssed. irst) intellient +eo+le are less li:ely to con(or, and) ths) are ,ore

li:ely to resist reliios do,a. Second) intellient +eo+le tend to ado+t an analytic #as o++osed to intiti!e$ thin:in style)

"hich has 'een sho"n to nder,ine reliios'elie(s. hird) se!eral (nctions o( reliiosity) incldin co,+ensatory control)sel(relation) sel(enhance,ent) and secre attach,ent) are also con(erred 'y intellience. *ntellient+eo+le ,ay there(ore

ha!e less need (or reliios'elie(s and +ractices.

)eywordsintellience) reliiosity) ,eta

analysis

or ,ore than eiht decades) researchers ha!e 'een in!esti

atin the association 'et"een intellience le!els and ,ea

sres o( reliios (aith. his association has 'een stdied

a,on indi!idals o( all aes) sin a !ariety o( ,easres.lthoh a s'stantial 'ody o( research has de!elo+ed) this

literatre has not 'een syste,atically ,etaanaly;ed.

rther,ore) +ro+osed e+lanations (or the intellience%

reliiosity association ha!e not 'een syste,atically

re!ie"ed. *n the +resent "or:) or oal "as to ,etaanaly;e

stdies on the relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity

and +resent +ossi'le e+lanations (or this relation.

ollo"in =ott(redson #1997$) "e de(ine intellience as

the a'ility to reason) +lan) sol!e +ro'le,s) thin: a'stractly)

co,+rehend co,+le ideas) learn ?ic:ly and learn (ro,

e+erience@ #+. 13$. his de(inition o( intellience is o(ten

re(erred to as analytic intellience or theg (actorAthe (irst

(actor that e,eres in (actor analyses o( *B s'tests #e..)Carroll) 19935 S+ear,an) 1904$. ther ne"ly identi(ied

ty+es o( intellience) sch as creati!e intellience

#Stern'er)

1999) 2006$ or e,otional intellience #Dayer) Carso) E

Salo!ey) 1999$) are ot o( the sco+e o( the +resent "or:

'ecase the a!aila'le stdies on the relation 'et"een intelli

ence and reliiosity ea,ined only analytic intellience. *n

addition) there are still dis+tes a'ot the natre o( nonana

lytic intellience #see recent echane 'et"een Dayer)

Carso) Panter) E Salo!ey) 2012) and Fis'ett et al.) 2012a$.

Reliiosity can 'e de(ined as the deree o( in!ol!e,ent

in so,e or all (acets o( reliion. ccordin to tran and

Foren;ayan #2004$) sch (acets inclde 'elie(s in s+ernat

ral aents) costly co,,it,ent to these aents #e..) o((erino( +ro+erty$) sin 'elie(s in those aents to lo"er

eistential anieties sch as aniety o!er death) and

co,,nal ritals that !alidate and a((ir, reliios 'elie(s.

( corse) so,e indi!idals ,ay e+ress co,,it,ent or

+artici+ate in co, ,nal ritals (or reasons other than

reliios 'elie(s. his isse "as +t into shar+ relie( 'y

ll+ort and Ross #1967$) "ho dre" a distinction 'et"een

intrinsic and etrinsic reli ios orientations. *ntrinsic

orientation is the +ractice o( reli ion (or its o"n sa:e5

etrinsic reliion is the se o( reliion as a ,eans to seclar

ends. his distinction "ill 'e re(erred to in later sections.

Since the ince+tion o( *B tests early in the 20th centry)

intellience has continosly occ+ied a central +osition in+sycholoical research #(or a s,,ary o( the (ield) see

1Gni!ersity o( Rochester) FH) GS

2Fortheastern Gni!ersity) Ioston) D) GS

*orresonding Author:

Diron Jc:er,an) e+art,ent o( Clinical and Social Sciences in

Psycholoy) Gni!ersity o( Rochester) P Io 270266) Deliora 431)

Rochester) FH 14627) GS.

K,ail-DironL+sych.rochester.ed
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/53

2 Personality and Social PsychologyReview XX(X)

Fis'ett et al.) 2012'$. Reliion) on the other hand) has a

,ore inter,ittent history. =orsch #1988$ noted that interest

in the +sycholoy o( reliion "as stron 'e(ore 1930)

al,ost etinct 'et"een 1930 and 1960) and on the rise a(ter

1960. his latter trend has accelerated in recent years.

*ndeed) it is sa(e to say that the 'l: o( the +resent content

o( +sycholoy o( reliion has 'een constrcted o!er the last

20 years #see) (or ea,+le) tran E Foren;ayan) 2004) or

the s+ecial reli iosity isses o( Personality and Social

Psychology Review) e'rary 2010) and o( the Journal of

Social Issues) ece,'er

200$.

=i!en the i,+ortance o( 'oth intellience and reliios

'elie(s in +sycholoical research) the relation 'et"een the,

constittes an intriin ?estion. *ndeed) as sho"n 'elo")

this ?estion attracted attention !ery early in the history o(

+sycholoical research) and it contines to (oster de'ate

today. he natre o( the relation 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity can ad!ance or :no"lede a'ot 'othconstrcts- Me ,iht learn "ho holds reliios 'elie(s and

"hy5 "e ,iht also learn ho" and "hy intellient +eo+le do

#or do not$ de!elo+ a +articlar 'elie( syste,.

The Relation Between Intelligence andReligiosity: A Brie+ 'istory

o or :no"lede) the (irst stdies on intellience and

relii osity a++eared in 1928) in the University of Iowa

Studies series, Studies in Character #No"ells) 19285

Sinclair) 1928$. hese stdies ea,ined sensory) ,otor) and

coniti!e cor relates o( reliiosity. *ntellience tests "ere

inclded in the 'attery o( ad,inistered tas:s. Ioth No"ells#1928$ and Sinclair #1928$ (ond that hiher le!els o(

intellience "ere related to lo"er le!els o( reliiosity.

cc,lation o( additional research drin the s'se

?ent three decades +ro,+ted ryle #198$ to re!ie" the

a!aila'le e!idence. Ne conclded that intellient stdents

are ,ch less li:ely to acce+t orthodo 'elie(s) and rather

less li:ely to ha!e +roreliios attitdes@ #+. 96$. ryle

also noted that) as o( 198) all a!aila'le e!idence "as 'ased

on children or collee stdent sa,+les. Ne s+eclated) ho"

e!er) that the sa,e reslts ,iht 'e o'ser!ed (or adlts o(

+ostcollee ae.

*n the s'se?ent decade) the +endl, s"n in the

o++osite direction. Oosa and Scho,,er #1961$ and Noe

#1969$ dre" conclsions (ro, their data that "ere inconsis

tent "ith those o( ryle #198$. ccordin to Oosa and

Scho,,er) social en!iron,ent relates the relationshi+ o(

,ental a'ilities and reliios attitdes 'y channelin the

intellience into certain a++ro!ed directions- a seclar

oriented en!iron,ent ,ay direct it to"ard s:e+ticis,) a

chrchori ented en!iron,ent ,ay direct it to"ard

increased reliios interest@ #+. 90$. hey (ond that in a

Catholic collee) ,ore intellient stdents :ne" ,ore a'ot

reliios doctrine and +artici+ated ,ore in strictly reliios

orani;ations. o the etent that sch +artici+ation is an

indicator o( reliiosity)


4/53

these reslts s++orted the Oosa and Scho,,er +rediction.

Gn(ortnately) ,easres o( reliios 'elie(s "ere not sed.

Noe #1969) 1974$ trac:ed chanes in reliios attitdes

on 13 ,erican ca,+ses. Ne co,+ared sr!ey data) ,ost

o( "hich "ere collected 'et"een 1930 and 1948) "ith data

that he collected hi,sel( in 1967 and 1968. n (or ca,

+ses) Noe also ea,ined the relation 'et"een S

scores and reliios attitdes. Correlations "ere s,all and

,ostly neati!e. Noe #1969$ conclded that no oranic or

+sychic relationshi+ eists 'et"een intellience andreliios atti tdes and . . . the relationshi+s (ond 'y

researchers are either de to edcational in(lences or 'iases

in the intellience tests@ #+. 21$. Noe ac:no"leded that

rane restrictions o( collee stdents intellience scores

,ay decrease correla tions 'et"een intellience and other

!aria'les. Fe!ertheless) he conclded that the lo" neati!e

intelliencereliiosity correlations i,+lied that there is no

relation 'et"een intelli ence and reliiosity.

Se!enteen years later) in a re!ision o( ryles 198

'oo:) ryle and IeitNallah,i #197$ aain re!ie"ed the

litera tre on the relation 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity. Gnli:e the (irst edition) the re!ised ,onora+h

did not o((er a conclsion reardin the ,anitde ordirection o( this relation. his "anin con!iction contined

drin the re,ainder o( the centry. or ea,+le) Ieit

Nallah,i and ryle #1997$ sested that there are no

reat di((erences in intellience 'et"een the reliios and

nonreliios) thoh (nda,entalists score a little lo"er@

#+. 183$. hey also noted the lac: o( larescale stdies that

controlled (or de,ora+hic !aria'les) or any stdies "hich

,a:e clear "hat the direction o( casation is) i( there is any

e((ect at all@ #+. 177$. *n an introdction to his o"n stdy)

rancis #1998$ re!ie"ed the +'lished e!idence and stated

that the n,'er o( stdies re+ortin a neati!e relation

eceeded the n,'er re+ortin a +ositi!e relation or no

relation. No"e!er) his o"n (indins (ro, that stdy as

"ell as others #e..) rancis)

1979$ sho"ed no relation) +osin a clear challene to the

research consenss (or,lated in the late 190s 'y ryle

#198$@ #rancis) 1998) +. 192$. *ronically) rancis "or:ed

eclsi!ely "ith children and adolescentsA+recisely the

+o+lation that) accordin to ryle #198$) does sho" a

neati!e relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity.

s i( in res+onse to IeitNallah,i and ryles #1997$

call) the last decade has seen a n,'er o( larescale stdies

that ea,ined the relation 'et"een intellience and reliios

ity #Oana;a"a) 2010a5 Qe"is) Ritchie) E Iates) 20115

Fy'or) 20095 Sher:at) 2010$. Oana;a"a #2010a$) Sher:at#2010$) and Qe"is et al. #2011$ all (ond neati!e relations

'et"een intellience and reliiosity in +ostcollee adlts.

Fy'or #2009$ (ond that yon atheists #ae 12 to 17$

scored sini(icantly hiher on an intellience test than reli

ios yoth.

he last decade also sa" stdies on the relation 'et"een

intellience and reliiosity at the ro+ le!el. Gsin data

(ro, 137 nations) Qynn) Nar!ey) and Fy'or #2009$

(ond


5/53

Zuckerman et al. 3

a neati!e relation 'et"een ,ean intellience scores #co,

+ted (or each nation$ and ,ean reliiosity scores.

No"e!er) *B scores (ro, nde!elo+ed and/or non

Mesterni;ed con tries ,iht ha!e li,ited !alidity

'ecase ,ost tests "ere de!elo+ed (or Mestern cltres.

Qo" le!els o( literacy and +ro'le,s in o'tainin

re+resentati!e sa,+les in so,e contries ,ay alsonder,ine the !alidity o( these (indins #Nnt) 20115

Richards) 20025 ol:en) 2003$. *n res+onse to these

criti?es) Ree!e #2009$ re+eated the analysis 't set all

national *B scores lo"er than 90 to 90. he resltin

*Breliiosity correlation "as not lo"er than "hat had 'een

re+orted in +rior stdies #see Ree!e) 2009) (or a discssion

o( his trncatin +rocedre$. *n the sa,e !ein) Pesta)

Dcaniel) and Iertsch #2010$ (ond a neati!e relation

'et"een intellience and reliiosity scores that "ere co,

+ted (or all 0 states in the Gnited States. hese reslts

are less ssce+ti'le to the +ro'le,s #e..) cltral

di((erences$ that +laed stdies at the contry le!el. hs)

the crrent literatre sests that areates ,ay alsoehi'it a nea ti!e relation 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity. No"e!er) the reasons (or relations at the ro+

le!el ,ay 'e ?ite di((erent (ro, reasons (or the sa,e

relations at the indi !idal le!el.

inally) +arallel to stdies on intellience and reliiosity)

+sycholoists ha!e also ea,ined a related isseAthe +re!

alence o( reliiosity a,on scientists. his line o( research

also started early #Qe'a) 1916$ and the to+ic contined to

attract attention in ,ore recent years #e..) Qarson E

Mitha,)

1998$. Stdies in this area ha!e (ond that) relati!e to the

eneral +'lic) scientists are less li:ely to 'elie!e in =od.

or ea,+le) Qe'a #1916$ re+orted that 8 o( rando,lyselected scientists in the Gnited States e+ressed dis'elie(

in) or do't reardin the eistence o( =od5 this +ro+ortion

rose to nearly 70 (or the ,ost e,inent scientists. Qarson

and Mitha, #1998$ re+orted si,ilar reslts) as e!idenced 'y

the title o( their articleAQeadin scientists still reect

=od.@ ( corse) hiher intellience is only one o( a n,'er

o( (actors that can accont (or these reslts.

es+ite the recent +tic: o( research on the intellience%

reliiosity connection) "e are not a"are o( any recent schol

arly re!ie"s 'esides those listed herein'e(ore. tside o(

acade,ic ornals) ho"e!er) there ha!e 'een at least t"o

re!ie"s #Iec:"ith) 19865 Iell) 2002$. Iec:"ith #1986$

con clded that 39 o( the 43 stdies that he s,,ari;ed

s+ +orted a neati!e relation 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity) and Iell #2002$ si,+ly re+eated this tally.

No"e!er) so,e o( the stdies re!ie"ed 'y Iec:"ith "ere

only indirectly rele !ant #e..) co,+arisons 'et"een ,ore

and less +restiios ni!ersities$) and so,e rele!ant stdies

"ere eclded.

*n s,,ary) the relation 'et"een intellience and relii

osity has 'een ea,ined re+eatedly) 't so (ar there is no

clear consenss on the direction and/or the ,anitde o( this

association. here is a hint that ae ,iht ,oderate the rela

tionshi+) 't this isse has not 'een +t to test. inally) there

is also no consenss on "hat ,iht e+lain this relation.


6/53

The Present In,estigation

he +r+ose o( the +resent in!estiation "as t"o(old. irst)

"e ai,ed to condct a ?antitati!e assess,ent o( the natre

and ,anitde o( the relation 'et"een intellience and

relii osity. K,'edded in this +r+ose "as also the intent to

ea, ine a tri+artite di!ision o( research +artici+antsA

+recollee) collee) and noncollee #noncollee re(ers to

indi!idals o( collee ae or older "ho are not in collee$A

as a ,oderator o( this association. ranciss stdies #e..)rancis) 1998$ s est that in the +recollee +o+lation)

intellience is only "ea:ly related to reliiosity. Iecase the

collee e+erience has ,any ni?e characteristics #e..)

(irst ti,e a"ay (ro, ho,e) e+osre to ne" ideas) hiher

le!els o( (reedo, and inde+endence$) and 'ecase the rane

o( intellience is restricted in the collee +o+lation) this

de,ora+hic ro+ "as considered se+arately. his le(t the

noncollee +o+la tion as the third cateory to 'e

ea,ined.

he second +r+ose o( the in!estiation "as to ea,ine

e+lanations (or any o'ser!ed associations 'et"een intelli

ence and reliiosity. Dost etant e+lanations #o( a nea

ti!e relation$ share one central the,eAthe +re,ise thatreliios 'elie(s are irrational) not anchored in science) not

testa'le and) there(ore) na++ealin to intellient +eo+le

"ho :no" 'etter.@ s Iertsch and Pesta #2009$ +t it)

+eo+le "ho are less a'le to ac?ire the ca+acity (or critical

thoht ,ay rely ,ore hea!ily on co,(orta'le 'elie(

syste,s that +ro!ide ncontested #and ncontesta'le$

ans"ers@ #+. 232$. Fy'or #2009$ o((ered a si,ilar !ie"-

Nih *B+eo+le are a'le to cr' ,aical) s+ernatral

thin:in and tend to deal "ith the ncertainties o( li(e on a

rationalcriticale,+irical 'asis@ #+. 91$. So,e in!estiators

ado+ted this a++roach 't) as Noe #1969$ had done earlier)

added edcation as a +os si'le ,ediatin !aria'le. Ree!e

and Iasali: #2011$) (or ea,+le) sested that

+o+lations "ith hiher a!erae *B are li:ely to ra!itate

a"ay (ro, reliios social con!entions and to"ards ,ore

rational . . . syste,s con(erred 'y the hiher #a!erae$

edcational achie!e,ent o( that +o+la tion@ #+. 6$.

Me identi(ied three other e+lanations o( the neati!e

intellience%reliiosity association) o((ered 'y ryle

#198$) Oana;a"a #2010a) 2010'$) and Sher:at #2010$.

ryle #198$ sested 'rie(ly and "ithot ela'oration

that ,ore intellient +eo+le tend to re'el aainst

con!entions) incldin orthodo reliios 'elie(s.

Oana;a"a #2010a)

2010'$ +osited that reliios 'elie(s de!elo+ed early in orancestral en!iron,ent 'ecase they "ere e!oltionarily

ada+ti!e5 atheis,) in contrast) is e!oltionarily no!el. Ne

also +ro+osed that intellience de!elo+ed as a ca+acity to

co+e ,ore e((ecti!ely "ith e!oltionarily no!el +ro'le,s.

=i!en that atheis, is e!oltionarily no!el) it is ,ore li:ely

to 'e ado+ted 'y ,ore intellient +eo+le. Sher:at #2010$)

(ocs in on Christian (nda,entalis, #as o++osed to

eneral reli iosity$ and !er'al a'ility #as o++osed to

eneral intellience$) +ro+osed that (nda,entalis, has a

neati!e e((ect on !er'al


7/53


a'ility. he reason is that !ery conser!ati!e Christians scorn

seclar edcation) the search (or :no"lede) in(or,ation

(ro, the ,edia) and anythin e,anatin (ro, the scienti(ic

,ethod. rther,ore) conser!ati!e Christians ,aintain

ho,oeneos social net"or:s) shn nonadherents) and

a!oid in(or,ation (ro, eternal sorces. he o!erall e((ect

is that (nda,entalist Christian 'elie(s as "ell as ties to

sectarian deno,inations ha!e a neati!e e((ect on !er'al

a'ility.

Reliion ,ay indeed 'e a set o( 'elie(s in the

s+ernatral #e..) Fy'or) 2009$ that "as ada+ti!e in an

ancestral en!i ron,ent #Oana;a"a) 2010a$. No"e!er) "e

'elie!e that reli ion is ,ch ,ore than that and) as sch)

the inter+retations o( its in!erse relation "ith intellience

are ,ore co,+licated than those o((ered so (ar. S+eci(ically)

recent theoretical and e,+irical "or: on the role and

(nctions o( reliion in h,an li(e #e..) Sedi:ides) 2010$

allo" a ne" loo: at the relation 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity. No"e!er) "e "ill ta:e that loo: only a(ter "eesta'lish the natre o( this relation.

Method

Selection ofStudies

Me searched (or rele!ant articles in PsycINFO) sin the

(ol lo"in intelliencerelated search ter,s- intelligence

uo- tient, I!, intelligence) and cognitive a"ility. Search

ter,s relatin to reliiosity "ere also entered) incldin

religion, s#irituality, religiosity) and religious "eliefs$

=oole Scholar search "as condcted (or articles thatcontained the "ord religion and eitherI! or intelligence. *n

addition) arti cles (ro, the Journal for the Scientific Study

of Religion andReview of Religious Research in years not

indeed 'y PsycINFO "ere ins+ected one'yone. he

%rchive for the Psychology of Religion) "hich is not

co!ered 'yPsycINFO) "as also re!ie"ed. inally) re(erence

lists o( stdies that "ere identi(ied 'y any o( the

a(ore,entioned ,ethods "ere searched (or additional

rele!ant stdies.

Stdies "ere inclded in the ,etaanalysis i( they ea,

ined the relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity at the

indi!idal le!el) and i( the e((ect si;e #Pearson r$ o( that

rela tion "as +ro!ided directly or cold 'e co,+ted (ro,

other statistics. or se!eral stdies) intellience and

reliiosity "ere ,easred) 't the athors did not re+ort the

relation 'et"een these t"o !aria'les. thors o( sch

stdies "ere contacted to o'tain the rele!ant in(or,ation. *(

athors did not res+ond to or (irst re?est) t"o ,ore

re,inders "ere sent. Mhen necessary) second and/or third

coathors "ere also contacted. Stdies that ea,ined the

relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity indirectly #e..)

co,+arisons at ro+ le!els) co,+arisons 'et"een scientists

and the eneral +o+lation$ "ere eclded.

Stdies inclded in the +resent ,etaanalysis sed a

!ariety o( intellience and reliiosity ,easres. Dost o( the

intelli ence tests are "idely sed #e..) Mechsler tests)

Pea'ody Pictre oca'lary est) etc.$. s'ro+ o(

stdies sed


8/53

ni!ersity entrance ea,s #GKKs5 e..) S) =RK$) "hich

are hihly correlated "ith standard *B ,easres #correlations

in the .60.80 rane are ty+ical (or collee stdents$. *ndeed)

these tests are o(ten !ie"ed as ,easres o( eneral intelli

ence #rey E etter,an) 20045 Ooeni) rey) E

etter,an)

2008$. Me also inclded stdies that ad,inistered tests o(

co niti!e a'ilities #e..) synony, tests) "or:in ,e,ory

tests$ that cold reasona'ly ser!e as +roies (or *B ,easres.

Me also ea,ined the relations 'et"een school +er(or,ance #rade +oint a!erae) =P$ and reliiosity.

*ntellience and =P correlate only ,oderately #the .2.40

rane is ty+ical (or collee stdents5 e..) einold) 19835

Pesta E Po;nans:i) 20085 Ridell E Qons'ry) 2004$.

*ndeed) Coyle and Pillo" #20085 Stdy 1$ re+orted that cor

relations 'et"een intellience and S/C scores "ere

s'stantially hiher than those 'et"een intellience and

=P. No"e!er) "hile =P is +ro'a'ly a +oor indicator o(

intellience) it can also 'e seen as a ,easre o( edcational

achie!e,ent. s noted herein'e(ore) so,e in!estiators sa"

edcation as the ,ediator o( the relation 'et"een intelli

ence and reliion) a !ie" that "ill et so,e s++ort i( =P

#!ie"ed as a ,easre o( edcational +er(or,ance$ is neati!ely related to reliiosity. ccordinly) "e +lanned to

ea,ine the relation 'et"een =P and reliiosity

se+arately.

he reliiosity ,easres inclded 'elie( scales that

assessed !arios the,es related to reliiosity #e..) 'elie( in

=od and/or the i,+ortance o( chrch$. *n addition) "e

inclded stdies that ,easred (re?ency o( reliios

'eha! iors #e..) chrch attendance) +rayer$) +artici+ation in

reli ios orani;ations) and ,e,'ershi+ in

deno,inations.

a'le 1 +resents the stdies that "ere analy;ed. *( reslts

(or ,ore than one inde+endent sa,+le o( +artici+ants "ere

re+orted in a sinle article) they "ere considered as se+arate

stdies in the analysis. ltoether there "ere 63 stdies

(ro,

2 sorces. rticles (ro, "hich data "ere etracted are

,ar:ed 'y an asteris: in the Re(erence section. a'le 1

+res ents a n,'er o( characteristics (or each stdy5 these

"ill 'e e+lained in reater detail in the (ollo"in section.

inally) a'le 1 +resents an e((ect si;e (or each stdyAthe

;eroorder correlation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity.

Data !traction and"oding

he (irst athor etracted an e((ect si;e r (or each stdy5 a

neati!e correlation indicated that hiher intellience "as

associated "ith lo"er reliiosity. Mhen se!eral correlations

"ere a!aila'le de to the se o( ,lti+le reliiosity and/or

intellience ,easres) the a!erae correlation "as co,

+ted. No"e!er) the se+arate correlations "ere retained (or

,oderation analyses i( each correlation corres+onded to a

di((erent le!el o( a ,oderator #see the (ollo"in (or details$.

he (irst athor also coded all o( stdy attri'tes that are

descri'ed in the (ollo"in. he third athor reco,+ted all

e((ect si;es and recoded all stdy attri'tes. nly one

codin


9/53


10/53

6

0

l

d

d(

b

t123+'*R'4H5S5R

637RAR8

A

t

9"

#$%

Ta&le #. continued

Stdy otal nPro+ortion

o( ,ales *ntellience ,easre

Reliiosity

,easre

F,'er o( ite,s in

reliiosity ,easre Sa,+le Iias

K((ect si;e#r$

No"ells #1928$

Stdy 1 461 0.43 horndi:e *ntellience est) *o"a

Co,+rehension est) and =PIelie(s >2 Collee n/a .2

l

Stdy 2 n/a n/a Fot s+eci(ied Ielie(s >2 Collee n/a .29

*n;licht) Dc=reor) Nirsh) andFash

#20095 Stdy 2$22 0.41 Monderlic Personnel est Ielie(s 1 Collee n/a .13

R. Tones #1938$ 268 n/a GKK Ielie(s >2 Collee n/a .24

Oana;a"a #2010a$5 S. Oana;a"a) +ersonal co,,nications) 2011-

Stdy 1 14)277 0.47 Pea'ody Pictre oca'lary est Ielie(s 1 Foncollee i,e a+ .12

Stdy 2 7)160 0.44 er'al synony,s Ielie(s 1 Foncollee n/a .14

Oosa and Scho,,er #1961$ 361 1.0 ssorted tests and =P De,'ershi+ >2 Collee n/a .09,

Qe"is) Ritchie) and Iates #2011$ 2)1 n/a ssorted tests Died >2 Foncollee n/a .16n

DcClloh) Knders) Irion) and Tain

#200$

Fo:elainen and irri #2010$5 P.

Fo:elainen)+ersonal

co,,nication) ece,'er 2011

91o

n/a Stan(ord%Iinet Ielie(s >2 Foncollee K2 Precollee ttenated

rane

.4

.20

Fy'or #2009$ 3)742 n/a ssorted tests De,'ershi+ 1 Precollee n/a .0

Pennycoo:) Cheyne) Seli) Ooehler) and

elsan #2012$

Stdy 1 223 .41 ssorted tests Died >2 Foncollee n/a .19+

Stdy 2 267 .22 ssorted tests Died >2 Foncollee n/a .17?

Poythress #197$ 19 n/a GKK Ielie(s >2 Collee n/a .19

RUsUnen) irri) and Fo:elainen #2006$ 142 n/a ssorted tests Ielie(s >2 +recollee n/a .17

Salter and Rotlede #1974$

Stdy 1 339 n/a GKK Ielie(s 1 Collee n/a .1

Stdy 2 241 n/a GKK Ielie(s 1 Collee n/a .18

Sarolo and iasse #2003$ 120 0.6 =P Ielie(s 1 Collee n/a .07

Sarolo and Scariot #20025

Stdy 2$5 R. Sarolo)

+ersonal co,,nications)

Darch 2012

94 0.41 =P Died >2 Precollee n/a .13

Shenha!) Rand) and =reene #20115

Stdy 2$306 0.3 Shi+ley oca'lary est) and M*S

*** Datri Reasonin 4estIelie(s >2 Collee n/a .06

Sher:at #2010$5 . K. Sher:at)+ersonal

co,,nications) cto'er 201112)994 0.43 oca'lary est Died 1 Foncollee n/a .1

r

Sher:at #2011$ 1)780 n/a Scienti(ic Qiteracy Scale (ro,

=eneral Social Sr!eyIelie(s 1 Foncollee n/a .34

(continued)


11/53

7

0

l

d

d(

b

t123+'*R'4H5S5R

637RAR8

A

t

9"

#$%

Ta&le #. continued

Stdy otal nPro+ortion

o( ,ales *ntellience ,easre

Reliiosity

,easre

F,'er o( ite,s in

reliiosity ,easre Sa,+le Iias

K((ect si;e#r$

Sinclair #1928$ 67 0.48 GKK Ielie(s >2 Collee K2 Collee ttenated

rane

.24

.47

S;o'ot et al. #2007$5 C. D. S;o'ot)

+ersonal co,,nication) 0ece,'er

2011

rner #1980$

236 1.0 M2*S ***'loc: desin and

oca'lary

ttendance 1 Precollee n/a .1

Stdy 1 200 1.0 hrstone Pri,ary Dental 'ilities

Scale

Stdy 2 200 1.0 hrstone Pri,ary Dental 'ilities

Scale

Ielie(s >2 Precollee n/a .04

Ielie(s >2 Precollee n/a .02

erhae #1964$ 1)38 n/a =roniner *ntellience est De,'ershi+ 1 Foncollee n/a .12

Hon) stin) and Nolt;,an #1966$

Stdy 1 481 0.69 =P Ielie(s >2 Collee n/a .03

Stdy 2 74 0.7 =P Ielie(s >2 Collee n/a .11

#ote. GKK Gni!ersity Kntrance K


12/53


!aria'le #oal o( stdy$ in!ol!ed a s'ecti!e d,ent) and

the t"o discre+ancies (or this !aria'le "ere resol!ed 'y dis

cssion. iscre+ancies in either the co,+tation o( e((ect

si;es or the codin o( stdy attri'tes indicated ,ista:es and

"ere corrected.

$ender. Me coded the +ercentae o( stdy +artici+ants"ho "ere ,ales) (or stdies that +ro!ided the ender

distri'tion.

%ntelligence measures. or each stdy) "e coded

"hich intellience test "as sed5 a se+arate codin

cateory "as inclded (or =P. No"e!er) "ith the

ece+tion o( =P and GKK) the n,'er o( stdies

associated "ith a sinle intellience ,easre "as too

s,all #ranin (ro, one to (or) see a'le 1$ to allo" a

,eanin(l analysis o( this !aria'le.

Religiosity measures. Me coded "hether the reliiosity,ea sre in!ol!ed 'elie(s) (re?ency o( chrch attendance

and/or +rayer) or +artici+ation/,e,'ershi+ in reliios

orani;a tions. ,ied@ cateory inclded stdies that

re+orted cor relations (or ,ore than one ty+e o( reliiosity

,easre. lthoh ,easres o( 'elie(s "ere heteroeneos

"ith res+ect to the (ocs o( the 'elie( #e..) 'elie( in =od)

'elie( in scri+tres) 'elie(s in s+irits$) there "ere not enoh

stdies to allo" a ,ore detailed classi(ication. Me also

coded the n, 'er o( ite,s in the reliiosity ,easres)

e+ectin ,easres "ith ,ore ite,s to 'e ,ore relia'le.

No"e!er) this !aria'le did not +rodce any reslts o(

interest.

$oal of study. Me coded "hether assessin the

relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity "as the ,ain

oal o( the stdy) one o( se!eral oals) or not a oal at all.

Sam&le ty&e. Stdies "ere classi(ied as in!estiatin

+recol lee) collee) or noncollee sa,+les) as de(ined

herein'e (ore. Fote that this !aria'le is related to ae and

edcation. he +recollee +artici+ants "ere al,ost

eclsi!ely 'et"een

12 and 18 years o( ae. nly one stdy in this cateory

#rancis) 1979$ inclded +artici+ants yoner than 12. Col

lee +artici+ants "ere nderradates and) !ery

in(re?ently) a ,itre o( nderradates and radatestdents. Me ass,ed that intellience scores o( collee

+artici+ants "ere restricted in rane relati!e to those o( the

eneral +o+lation. Foncollee +artici+ants "ere recrited

otside o( acade,ic contets and tended to 'e older than

+artici+ants in the col lee ro+.

Religion and race. Partici+ants reliions "ere coded

as Protestant) Catholic) Christian@ #a ter, that o(ten "ent

ndi((erentiated in the stdies$) Te"ish) or ns+eci(ied. or

each reliion) a stdy "as coded as all@ #90 or ,ore$ or

,ostly@ #,ore than 0$. here "ere no stdies in the

,ostly Te"ish@ cateory. Me coded race accordin to (or

cateories- Dostly Cacasians) all Cacasians) (rican


13/53


14/53

Zuckerman et al. 9

Ta&le (. Correlations Iet"een Reliiosity and *ntellience.

Rando,e((ects reslts i


15/53

,eanin(l relation to reliiosity and) accordinly) alls'se

?ent analyses o,itted the (i!e stdies that sed only =P.

or the (or stdies that sed =P and other intellience

tests) "e sed only their non=P reslts in s'se?ent

analyses.

(ter ecldin all (indins (or =P) 8 stdies

re,ained (or analysis. he e((ect si;e (or these non=P

stdies #sho"n in the second ro" o( a'le 2$ "as ,ore

neati!e than that o( the (ll data set in the rando,e((ects

analysis 't did not chane in the (iede((ects analysis.

Statistical artifacts. s noted herein'e(ore) t"o

,ethodoloi cal (eatres "ere considered li:ely to attenate

the intelli ence%reliiosity relationArestriction o( rane

and the +resence o( a ti,e a+ 'et"een ,easre,ents.

third ,eth odoloical (eatreAetre,e ro+sA"as

e+ected to in(late the intellience%reliiosity relation. ny

e((ects that distorted the tre@ intellience%reliiosity

relation shold 'e re,o!ed.

*n an F o( the n"eihted e((ect si;es #rando,

e((ects ,odel$) the (ollo"in ro+s o( stdies "ere co,

+ared- restricted rane stdies #& .31) ' 3$) ti,e a+stdies #& .12) ' 4$) etre,e ro+s stdies #& .43)

' $) and the re,ainin stdies #& .14) ' 46$. he

o,ni'sF "as sini(icant)F#3) 4$ 7.06)# < .001.

Sr+risinly) stdies "ith restriction o( rane yielded an

e((ect si;e #& .31$ that "as ,ore neati!e than that o(

the

46 stdies "ith no e!ident sorce o( 'ias #& .14$.

here(ore) ranerestricted stdies "ere retained. Iecase


16/53


17/53

=i!en that the intellience%reliiosity relation di((ered 'y

sa,+le ty+e and the 'elie(s/'eha!ior distinction) it "as o(

interest to ea,ine their co,'ined e((ects. Kcldin the 10

stdies that sed a co,'ination o( 'elie(s/'eha!ior ,ea

sres) the re,ainin 43 stdies "ere ea,ined in a 2

#'elie(s/ 'eha!ior$ [ 3 #sa,+le ty+e$ F. he reslts

sho"ed sini(icant e((ects (or the 'elie(s/'eha!ior (actor)

F#1) 37$

6.44) # < .02) and sa,+le ty+e) F#2) 37$ 4.6) # < .02.

*,+ortantly) the interaction "as not sini(icant)F .42.o et as accrate +ictre as +ossi'le o( the reslts) rather

than +resentin ,eans only (or the 43 stdies that ,easred

either 'elie(s or 'eha!iors) "e loo:ed at all a!aila'le data.

ccordinly) "e added the 10 stdies that +ro!ided e((ect


18/53

Zuckerman et al. 11

Ta&le 0. he *ntellience%Reliiosity Relation 'y Sa,+le y+e and the Ielie(/Ieha!ior istinction #k 63$.

Gn"eihted ,ean correlations Meihted ,ean correlations

Sa,+le Ieha!ior Ielie(s Ieha!ior Ielie(s

Precollee

Collee

.0 #$

.0 #7$

.08 #10$

.16 #24$

.01

.02

.08

.17a

Foncollee .18 #6$ .2 #11$ .04 .20

ak 23 #see Fote a) a'le 2$.

si;es (or 'elie(s and 'eha!iors) dis+layin each stdy t"ice

#once in the 'elie(s col,n and once in the 'eha!ior col

,n$. a'le 4 +resents n"eihted and "eihted ,ean cor

relations (or the 63 data entries. hese ,ean correlations

"ere etre,ely si,ilar to the corres+ondin ,ean correla

tions o'ser!ed (or only the 43 data entries.

Fote that data entries in the Ieha!ior col,n in a'le 4

#' 18$ re+resent inde+endent stdies as do data entries in

o( ender as a ,oderator o( the intellience%reliiosity rela

tion re,ains a to+ic (or (tre research.

$oal of the study. Stdy oal #i.e.) "hether in!estiatin

the intellience%reliiosity relation "as the ,ain oal o( the

stdy) one o( se!eral oals) or not a oal$ "as not related to

e((ect si;es in a rando,e((ects F ## < .34$. *n a

(iede((ects analysis) the 'et"eenro+s e((ect "as si

the Ielie(s col,n #' 4$. he noninde+endence in!ol!es ni(icant)# < .001 #&,ain oal

.09)&one o( se!eral oals

.17)

the (act that 10 stdies a++ear in 'oth col,ns 'ecase they &not a oal

.14$. hs) the neati!e relation 'et"een intel

had 'eha!ior and 'elie( e((ects. he di((erences a,on the

three sa,+le ro+s "ithin each col,n "ere sini(icant in

rando, and (iede((ects analyses ## < .0$. *n a'solte

ter,s) the ,ean correlations in the Ieha!ior col,ns "ere

"ea:) +articlarly "hen ,eans "ere n"eihted. Iecase

o( noninde+endence) this enlared data set o( ' 63 reslts

"as not sed in any s'se?ent analysis #nless other"ise

noted$.

Percentage of male &artici&ants. s an e+loratory

analysis) "e ea,ined the relation 'et"een +ercentae o(

,ales in each stdy and e((ect si;e o( the intellience%reliiosity rela tion. *n the 34 stdies in "hich it cold 'e

deter,ined) +er centae o( ,ales "as +ositi!ely correlated

"ith n"eihted e((ect si;es) r#32$ .0) # < .01. his

correlation indicates that the neati!e intellience%

reliiosity relation "as less neati!e in stdies "ith ,ore

,ales. his relation held in ter,s o( ,anitde (or the

+recollee and collee ro+s) r#6$ .48) ns) and r#12$ .

1)# .06) 't "as "ea:er at the noncollee le!el) r#10$

.19) ns. Mhen analy;ed as a (ied e((ects reression) the

relation 'et"een +ercentae o( ,ales and e((ect si;e "as

also ,ar:edly +ositi!e)# < .001.

,ore direct test o( the +ossi'ility that the intellience%

reliiosity relation is less neati!e (or ,ales is a "ithinstdy co,+arison 'et"een ,ales and (e,ales. Oana;a"a

1

con dcted this test (or t"o stdies #Oana;a"a) 2010a5

co,'ined N 21)437$. *( anythin) the reslts +ointed in

the o++osite direction. he intellience%reliiosity

correlations (or (e,ales and ,ales) res+ecti!ely) "ere .11

and .12 in Stdy

1) and .14 and .16 in Stdy 2. lthoh the di((erence

'et"een (e,ales and ,ales "as not sini(icant) e!en "hen

co,'ined ,etaanalytically across stdies #( 1.39) #

.16$) the direction o( this di((erence is inconsistent "ith the

'et"eenstdies (indin o( the ,etaanalysis. hs) the

isse


19/53

lience and reliiosity "as ,ore neati!e (or stdies in

"hich this relation "as not the ,ain ?estion o( interest.

Na!in esti,ated the o!erall intellience%reliiosity rela

tion) and ha!in tested a n,'er o( ,oderators o( this rela

tion) "e no" +roceed to ancillary analyses. Me 'ein 'y

correctin r !ales (or rane restriction) con!ertin r !ales

to Cohens d scores) and sin these d scores to esti,ate *B

di((erences 'et"een 'elie!ers and non'elie!ers. Me then

ea,ine "hether the o'ser!ed relation 'et"een intellience

and reliiosity ,iht 'e acconted (or 'y a n,'er o( third!aria'les.@ inally) "e ea,ine e!idence that ,iht shed

liht on the casal direction o( the intellience%reliiosity

relation.

ffect Si-e of the %ntelligence+ReligiosityRelationr/ "orrected r/ "ohen0s d/ and %1Points

Clearly) the si;e o( the intellience%reliiosity relation

de+ends on sa,+le ro+ and ty+e o( reliiosity ,easre. *n

the +recollee ro+) the 'est esti,ate o( the si;e o( this

rela tion is r .085 this e((ect si;e "as o'tained in

rando, and (iede((ects analyses o( stdies "ith

reliiosity ,easres that assessed reliios 'elie(s #see

a'le 4$.

or the collee ro+) the e((ect si;es +resented so (ar

"ere not corrected (or rane restriction o( intellience

scores. Ielo") "e +resent the ncorrected and the corrected

rs (or this ro+. Co,+tation o( the corrected rs "as 'ased

on horndi:es #1949$ Case 2 (or,la) "hich re?ires se

o( the ratio 'et"een the nrestricted and restricted S)s o(

intel lience scores.2

Sac:ett) Oncel) rneson) Coo+er)

and Maters #20095 P. R. Sac:ett) +ersonal co,,nication)

Day2012$ calclated a 1/.67 ratio 'et"een S)s o( S scores

(or stdents "ho a++lied to 't did not attend collee) and

st dents "ho a++lied to and attended collee. hese

esti,ates


20/53

K((ect si;e Gn"eihted Meihted Gn"eihted Meihted Gn"eihted Meihted

2ll stdies

r .14 .1 .21 .22 .23 .1d .28 .30 .43 .4 .47 .30

*B+oints 4.2 4. 6.4 6.8 7.1 4.

r .16 .17 .24 .2 .2 .20

d .32 .34 .49 .2 .2 .41

*B+oints 4.8 .1 7.4 7.8 7.8 6.2


Ta&le 1. K((ect Si;e o( the Relation Iet"een *ntellience and Reliiosity (or Selected =ro+s.

Collee ncorrected Collee corrected Foncollee

Stdies "ith reliiosity ,easre assessin reliios 'elie(s

+ertain to three cohorts #1991997$ o( stdents "ho a++lied

to 41 collees and ni!ersities in the Gnited States. he

schools "ere di!erse in location and si;e) and inclded +ri

!ate and +'lic instittions. his ratio is conser!ati!e in that

it is 'ased on the +o+lation o( S test ta:ers rather thanthe entire +o+lation.

ne o( the stdies inclded in the +resent ,etaanalysis

#Iertsch E Pesta) 2009$ sed the ratio o( 1/.71 to correct a

correlation 'et"een collee stdents scores on the

Monderlic Personnel est and reliiosity.3

Me chose to se

only the ratio co,+ted 'y Sac:ett et al. #2009$) 'ecase it

"as 'ased on a (ar larer sa,+le5 still) the si,ilarity

'et"een the t"o ratios "as reassrin.

*n addition to correctin the correlations at the collee

le!el) "e also ea,ined #at collee and noncollee le!els$)

the Cohens d e?i!alents o( the o'ser!ed rs.4

Con!ersion

(ro, r to d is in(or,ati!e "hen one o( the t"o correlated

!aria'les can 'e dichoto,i;ed ,eanin(lly. *n the +resent

analysis) reliiosity dichoto,i;es conce+tally to 'elie!ers

and non'elie!ers. Iecase the correlations sed in the ,eta

analysis "ere 'ased on the entire +o+lation #stdies o(

etre,e ro+s "ere eclded$) conce+tali;in the e?i!a

lent ds as the di((erence 'et"een 'elie!ers and non'elie!ers

is etre,ely conser!ati!e. Still) the d o( the di((erence in

intellience scores 'et"een these t"o ro+s is hihly in(or

,ati!e5 ,lti+lyin d 'y 1Athe standard de!iation o( the

,ost "idely sed intellience tests sch as the Mechsler

dlt *ntellience Scale%hird Kdition WM*S%***A+ro

!ides an esti,ate o( the n,'er o( *B +oints se+aratin

'elie!ers (ro, non'elie!ers.

a'le +resents the reslts (or all stdies at the collee

and noncollee le!els #to+ +anel$ and (or stdies tili;in

reliiosity ,easres that tareted reliios 'elie(s. #*n a'le

) "e sed all the stdies (ro, the collee and noncollee

ro+s (ro, the enlared data set +resented in a'le 45 '

63.$ Fot sr+risinly) the corrected e((ect si;es at the

collee le!el #,iddle +art o( the ta'le$ are ,ore neati!e

than the ncorrected e((ect si;es #le(t side o( the ta'le$. *n

addition) the corrected e((ect si;es at the collee le!el

a++ear co,+a ra'le "ith those at the noncollee le!el.

Relati!e to the

noncollee le!el) the corrected collee e((ect si;es are si,i

lar in the rando,e((ects analysis and so,e"hat larer in

the (iede((ects analysis. catios conclsion is that the

t"o +o+lations do not di((er in the deree to "hich

intellience and reliiosity are neati!ely related.

Rando, and (iede((ects analyses +rodced ,ore nea

ti!e e((ect si;es "hen reliiosity ,easres assessed reliios

'elie(s. K((ect si;es #rs$ (or the collee #corrected$ and non

collee ro+s raned (ro, .20 to .2 #,ean r .24$5 in

*B +oints) the e((ect si;es raned (ro, 6.2 to 7.8 #& 7.3$.

,esting ,hird 2ariale ffects $ender/Age/ andducation

correlation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity ,ay 'ede to a third !aria'le sch as ender) ae) or edcation.

=ender ,ay act as a third !aria'le 'ecase o( its relation to

reliiosityA"o,en tend to 'e ,ore reliios than ,en

#DcClloh) Knders) Irion) E Tain) 2005 Sher:at E

Milson) 1995 Star:) 2002$. e is also related to

reliiosity) althoh this relation is not consistent across the

li(e s+an or across cltres #re) Tohnson) E Mhite)

19995 Sher:at)

1998$. Kdcation) as noted earlier) is related to intellience

and reliiosity. ccordinly) "e identi(ied stdies that +ro

!ided the rele!ant in(or,ation #sally a correlation ,atri

o( all !aria'les$ that allo"ed s to co,+te +artial correla

tions 'et"een intellience and reliiosity) controllin (oreach o( the hy+othesi;ed third !aria'les.

a'le 6 +resents ;eroorder and +artial correlations con

trollin (or ender (or 13 stdies. he a'solte di((erences

'et"een the ;eroorder and +artial correlations raned (ro,

.00 to .03) "ith a ,edian di((erence o( .01. hs) controllin

(or ender neither a,ented nor redced correlations

'et"een intellience and reliiosity.

a'le 7 +resents ;eroorder and +artial correlations con

trollin (or ae (or 10 stdies. Kcldin ran;'la #1934$)

a'solte di((erences 'et"een the t"o ty+es o( correlations

raned (ro, .00 to .02) "ith a ,edian o( .00. ran;'las


21/53

data yielded ;eroorder and +artial correlations o( .1 and

.21) res+ecti!ely. n 'alance) it see,s that controllin (or


22/53

Zuckerman et al. 13

Ta&le 2. Jero31rder and Partial #Controllin (or =ender$ Correlations Iet"een *ntellience and Reliiosity.

Stdy Jero3order correlations Partial correlations

Ilanchardields) Nert;o) Stein) and Pa: #2001$

Stdy 1- Stdent sa,+le .00 .01

Stdy 2- dlt sa,+le .32 .30

Iloodood) rnley) and Ddrac: #2008$ .1 .16

Cottone) rc:er) and Ta!ier #2007$ .14 .14

e+tla) Nenry) Shoeny) and Sla!ic: #2006$ .10 .10

oy #197$ .0 .2a

rancis #1979$ .04 .04

rancis #1997) 1998$ .04 .04

rancis) Pearson) and St''s #198$ .13 .11

Nadden #1963$ .06 .0

Oana;a"a #2010a5 +ersonal co,,nication) Tanary 2012$

Stdy 1 .12 .11

Stdy 2 .14 .1

Qe"is) Ritchie) and Iates #2011$ .16 .16

Pennycoo:) Cheyne) Seli) Ooehler) and elsan #2012$

Stdy 1 .19 .22

Stdy 2 .17 .16

a!erae o( ;ero3order correlations that "ere co,+ted se+arately (or ,en and "o,en.

Ta&le 3. Jero31rder and Partial #Controllin (or e$ Correlations Iet"een *ntellience and Reliiosity.

Stdy Jero3order correlations Partial correlations

Ilanchardields) Nert;o) Stein) and Pa: #2001$

Stdy 1- Stdent sa,+le .00 .00

Stdy 2- dlt sa,+le .32 .30

Ciesiels:iOaiser #200$ .14 .14

Cottone) rc:er) and Ta!ier #2007$ .14 .14

e+tla) Nenry) Shoeny) and Sla!ic: #2006$ .10 .10

rancis) Pearson) and St''s #198$ .13 .14

ran;'la #1934$ .1 .21

Nadden #1963$ .06 .06

Oana;a"a #2010a5 +ersonal co,,nication) Tanary 2012$

Stdy 1 .12 .12

Stdy 2 .14 .1

Qe"is) Ritchie) and Iates #2011$ .16 .14


Stdy 1 .19 .19

Stdy 2 .17 .18

ae has little e((ect on correlations 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity.s +re!iosly noted) so,e in!estiators sested that

edcation ,ediates the relation 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity #Noe) 19745 Ree!e E Iasali:) 2011$.

*nterestinly) Oana;a"a #S. Oana;a"a) +ersonal

co,,nication) Tanary

2012$ es+oses an o++osin !ie") na,ely that intellience

acconts (or any neati!e relation 'et"een edcation and

reliiosity. a'le 8 +resents reslts that address the t"o

co, +etin hy+otheses. he analyses are 'ased on se!en

stdies (ro, three sorces. Reslts (ro, the stdent sa,+le

stdied

'y Ilanchardields) Nert;o) Stein) and Pa: #20015 (irst

ro" in a'le 8$ can 'e eclded 'ecase o( rane restriction

(or intellience and edcation #indeed) all correlations (or

that stdy "ere "ea:$. he reslts o( the re,ainin si std

ies indicate that edcation does not ,ediate the intellience%

reliiosity relation.

o 'ein "ith) intellience "as ,ore neati!ely related

to reliiosity than "as edcation #n"eihted ,ean correla

tions "ere .18 and .06) res+ecti!ely$. Me tested the si

ni(icance o( this di((erence se+arately (or each stdy) sin

a +rocedre (or co,+arin noninde+endent

correlations


23/53

Stdy 1e

.12VVV .14VVV .32VVV .0VVV .10VVV

Stdy 2(

.14VVV .08VVV .0VVV .17VVV .09VVV

Qe"is) Ritchie) and Iates #2011$

.16VVV .12VVV .41VVV .14VVV .08VV


Stdy 1 .19VV .20VV .22VVV .01 .06

Stdy 2 .17VV .16VV .27VVV .0 .00


Ta&le 4. Jero3order and Partial Correlations ,on *ntellience) Reliiosity and Kdcation.

*ntellience and reliiosity *ntellience and edcation Kdcation and reliiosity

Stdy

Jero3order

correlations

Partial

correlationsa

Jero3order

correlations

Jero3order

correlations

Partial

correlations'

Ilanchardields) Nert;o) Stein) and Pa: #2001$Stdy 1- Stdent sa,+le

c.00 .02 .21V .06 .06

Stdy 2- dlt sa,+led

.32VVV .31VVV .30VVV .08 .03

Oana;a"a #2010a5 +ersonal co,,nication) 2012$

aControllin (or edcation.

'Controllin (or intellience.

c# 96.

d

# 219.e# ranes (ro, 14)26 to 14)987.

(# ranes (ro, 6)030 to 10)971 ece+t (or the correlation 'et"een intellience and edcation ## 23)026$.

# ranes (ro, 181 to 2307.

3& < .0. VV& < .01. VVV& < .001.

#Den) Rosenthal) E R'in) 1992$5 the co,'ined di((erence

across the si stdies "as hihly sini(icant) ( 9.32) # .28) res+ecti!ely) in Stdy

2.

*n contrast) correlations 'et"een ,easres o( analyticstyle and reliiosity "ere lo"er 't ,ostly re,ained sini(i

cant "hen controllin (or t"o ,easres o( intellience. *n

stdy 1) these correlations "ere redced (ro, .33 and .19)

#s < .0) to .26)# < .0) and .11)#


32/53

also +ro!ides these (or 'ene(its and) there(ore) lo"ers ones

need to 'e reliios.

Religiosity as com&ensatory control. Reliiosity can

+ro!ide a sense o( eternal control) that is) the +erce+tion

that the "orld is orderly and +redicta'le #as o++osed to

rando, and cha otic$5 reliiosity can also +ro!ide a sense o(

+ersonal control 'y e,+o"erin 'elie!ers directly throh

their +ersonal rela tions "ith =od. *n a series o( stdies)

Oay and colleaes #Oay) =acher) Fa+ier) Callan) EQarin) 20085 Oay) Dosco !itch) E Qarin) 20105 Qarin)

Oay) E Dosco!itch) 2008$ sho"ed that threatenin a sense

o( +ersonal control increased 'elie(s in =od) +articlarly

"hen the controllin natre o( =od "as e,+hasi;ed.

ccordin to these in!estiators) +eo +le "ho lose +ersonal

control ta:e co,(ort in reliion) 'ecase it sests to the,

that the "orld is nder =ods con trol and) there(ore)

+redicta'le and nonrando,. Oay) =a cher) Dc=reor) and

Fash #2010$ also sested that reliiosity can con(er a

s+eci(ic (or, o( +ersonal control "hen other (or,s o(

+ersonal control are decreased. hey cite e!idence indicatin

that indi!idals "hose +ersonal control is threatened 'eco,e

,ore certain o( the s+eriority o( their reliios 'elie(s),ore deter,ined to li!e in accordance "ith their (aith) and

,ore con!inced that others "old aree "ith their 'elie(s i(

they tried to nderstand the, #Dc=reor) Nai) Fash) E

e+er) 20085 Dc=reor) Fash) E Prentice) 2009$. *n s,)

reliiosity +ro!ides co,+ensatory control "hen an indi

!idals +ersonal control 'elie(s are nder,ined.

*ntellience also con(ers a sense o( +ersonal control. Me

identi(ied eiht stdies that re+orted correlations 'et"een

intellience and 'elie( in +ersonal control #=ro!er E

Nert;o)

19915 Qach,an) 19835 Qach,an) Ialtes) Fesselroade) E

Millis) 19825 Dartel) DcOel!ie) E Standin) 19875 Diller

E Qach,an) 20005 Prenda E Qach,an) 20015 olor E

Re;ni:o(() 19675 P. Mood E Knlert) 2009$. ll eiht cor

relations "ere +ositi!e) "ith a ,ean correlation #"eihted

'y df o( each stdy$ o( .29. *n addition) hiher intellience

is associated "ith reater sel(e((icacyAthe 'elie( in ones

o"n a'ility to achie!e !aled oals #Iandra) 1997$. his

constrct is si,ilar to +ersonal control 'elie(s 't has 'een

ea,ined se+arately in the literatre. *n a ,etaanalysis o(

26 stdies) the ,ean correlation 'et"een intellience and

sel(e((icacy "as .20 #Tde) Tac:son) Sha") Scott) E Rich)

2007$.

*( ,ore intellient +eo+le are hiher in +ersonal control

'elie(s or sel(e((icacy) then they ,ay ha!e less need (or thesense o( control o((ered 'y reliion.

Religiosity as self8regulation. DcClloh and

Milloh'y #2009$ +resented e!idence that reliiosity is

associated #al'eit "ea:ly$ "ith +ositi!e otco,es) incldin

"ell'ein and acade,ic achie!e,ent. hey sested that

sel(rela tion #adstin 'eha!ior in the +rsit o( oals$

and sel(con trol #(oroin s,all) i,,ediate re"ards to

increase the li:elihood o( o'tainin larer) 't delayed

re"ards$ ,iht


33/53

Zuckerman et al. 19

,ediate the association 'et"een reliiosity and +ositi!e ot

co,es. he researchers +resented e!idence (ro, crosssec

tional) lonitdinal) and e+eri,ental stdies sho"in that

reliiosity +ro,otes sel(control. hey ,arshaled additional

e!idence indicatin that reliiosity (acilitates the co,+letion

o( each co,+onent o( the sel(relation +rocess) incldin

oal settin) ,onitorin discre+ancies 'et"een ones+resent state and ones oals) and correctin 'eha!ior to

,a:e it ,ore co,+ati'le "ith ones oals. inally)

DcClloh and Milloh'y +resented e!idence indicatin

that sel(control and/or sel(relation ,ediate the relation

'et"een reliios ity and +ositi!e otco,es. Consistent "ith

that re!ie") Rondin) Qee) Taco'son) and Ti #2012$ (ond

that +artici +ants +ri,ed "ith reliios conce+ts eercised

'etter sel( control5 in addition) +ri,in reliios

conce+ts rene"ed sel(control in +artici+ants "hose a'ility

to eercise sel( control had 'een de+leted.

,ore nanced ,odel o( the relation 'et"een reliiosity

and sel(control "as +ro+osed 'y Ooole) DcClloh) Ohl)

and Roelo(s,a #2010$. hey +ro+osed that intrinsic reliiosity (acilitates i,+licit sel(relation "hereas etrinsic reli

iosity #as "ell as (nda,entalis,$ (acilitates e+licit

sel(relation. ocsin on the i,+licit as+ect o( this

dichoto,y) Ooole et al. ared that the co,+onents o(

intrin sic reliiosity #holistic a++roach to "ell'ein)

interation o( coniti!e +rocessin) and e,'odi,ent$ dra"

on the sa,e +rocesses that are sed in the ser!ice o( i,+licit

sel(rela tion. hey re!ie"ed a lare n,'er o( (indins

consistent "ith this ,odel. or ea,+le) the relation

'et"een intrinsic reliiosity and i,+licit sel(relation o(

action "as ills trated 'y e!idence sho"in that +ri,in

reliios conce+ts increases +rosocial 'eha!ior

#Randol+hSen E Fielsen)2007$5 and the relation 'et"een intrinsic reliiosity and

i,+licit sel(relation o( affect "as illstrated 'y e!idence

sho"in that +rayin (or so,eone redced aner a(ter

+ro!o cation #Ire,ner) Ooole) E Ish,an) 2011$.

*ntellience is also associated "ith 'etter sel(relation

and sel(control a'ilities. he classic test o( sch a'ilities is

the delay o( rati(ication +aradi, in "hich +artici+ants

choose 'et"een a s,all i,,ediate re"ard and a lare

delayed re"ard #Iloc: E Iloc:) 1980$. Choosin the lare

delayed re"ard ser!es as an indicator o( sel(control.

Sha,osh and =ray #2008$ ,etaanaly;ed the relation

'et"een intellience and delay discontin #the latter

constrct is identical to delay o( rati(ication ece+t that

hih delay discontin indicates +oor sel(control$. heir

analysis) 'ased on 26 stdies) yielded a ,ean r o( .23. his

sests that intellient +eo+le are ,ore li:ely to delay

rati(ication #i.e.) less li:ely to enae in delay discontin$.

"o o( the stdies inclded in the Sha,osh and =ray

#2008$ ,etaanalysis #de Mit) lory) cheson) DcClos:ey)

E Dannc:) 20075 olan E lla,) 2004$) and a third stdy

'y o,) e Milde) Nlstin) and Sa''e #2007$) tili;ed the

Iarratt *,+lsi!eness Scale #I*S5 Iarratt) 1985 Patton)

Stan(ord) E Iarratt) 199$. ll three stdies re+orted

neati!e

correlations 'et"een intellience and i,+lsi!eness. *n the

olan and lla, #2004$ stdy) intellience "as neati!ely

related to t"o other i,+lsi!eness scales 'esides the I*S

and to three 'eha!ioral ,easres o( i,+lsi!eness 'esides

the delay o( rati(ication tas:.

Sha,osh and =ray #2008$ o((ered a n,'er o( e+lana

tions (or the relation 'et"een intellience and sel(control.hey ared that delay o( rati(ication ,ay re?ire "or:in

,e,ory to ,aintain re+resentations o( delayed re"ards

"hile +rocessin other ty+es o( in(or,ation #e..) o++ort

nity costs o( (oroin i,,ediate re"ards$. Dore intellient

+eo+le ha!e 'etter "or:in ,e,ories #(or a re!ie") see

c:er,an) Ieier) E Ioyle) 200$) "hich ,ay e+lain "hy

they ha!e 'etter sel(control. lternati!ely) Sha,osh and

=ray +ro+osed that delay o( rati(ication re?ires cool@

#,ore rational$ eecti!e (nctionin rather than hot@

#,ore a((ecti!e$ eecti!e (nctionin. Dore intellient

+eo+le) sested Sha,osh and =ray) are ,ore li:ely to

enae the cool syste, and ,ay there(ore 'e 'etter a'le to

eercise sel( control. Reardless o( the ,echanis,) i( ,oreintellient +eo+le ha!e 'etter sel(relation and/or sel(

control ca+a 'ilities) then they ,ay ha!e less need (or the

sel(relatory (nction o( reliiosity.

Religiosity as self8enhancement. s stated 'y Sedi:ides

and =e'aer #2010$) +eo+le are ,oti!ated to see

the,sel!es (a!ora'ly . . . Stated di((erently) +eo+le are

,oti!ated to sel( enhance@ #+. 17$. Detaanalyses 'y

ri,'le #1997$ and Sedi:ides and =e'aer indicated that

intrinsic reliiosity is +ositi!ely related to sel(enhancin

res+onses althoh etrinsic reliiosity is not. o e+lain

these (indins) Sedi:ides and =e'aer +ro+osed that

reliios cltres a++ro!e o( 'ein reliios as an end initsel() "hich can trn intrinsic reliiosity into a sorce o(

sel("orth. Reliios cl tres disa++ro!e) ho"e!er) o(

sin reliion as a ,eans to seclar ends) "hich ,ay

e+lain the disassociation 'et"een etrinsic reliiosity and

sel(enhance,ent. *n s++ort o( this ,odel) Sedi:ides and

=e'aer sho"ed that in ,ore reliios cltres) #a$ the

+ositi!e relation 'et"een intrinsic reliiosity and sel(

enhance,ent "as ,ore +ositi!e) "hereas #'$ the lo" or

neati!e relation 'et"een etrinsic reliiosity and sel(

enhance,ent "as ,ore neati!e. Het another reason (or the

association 'et"een intrinsic reliiosity and sel(

enhance,ent ,ay 'e the ele!ated stats that 'elie!ers can

deri!e (ro, +ersonal relationshi+s "ith =od #Sedi:ides E

=e'aer) 20105 see also Iatson) Schoenrade) E entis)

19935 Kline) 20025 Reiss) 2004$.

Qi:e reliiosity) intellience ,ay +ro!ide a sense o(

hiher sel("orth. K!idence (or this co,es (ro, t"o lines o(

research. irst) a n,'er o( stdies ea,ined the relation

'et"een intellience and sel(estee,. Mhile one stdy

#=a'riel) Critelli) E Ke) 1994$ re+orted no association

'et"een the t"o constrcts #r .02$) three other stdies

#Tde) Nrst) E Si,on) 20095 Qynch E Clar:) 1985

Pathare

E Oane:ar) 1990$ re+orted sini(icant al'eit s,all +ositi!e


34/53


correlations #rs .18) .27) and .16) res+ecti!ely$. second

line o( research lin:in hiher intellience to hiher sel(

"orth concerns the relation 'et"een intellience and eneral

(actors o( +ersonality. Narris #2004$ redced 10 +ersonality

scales to t"o (actorsAo+enness and achie!e,entAthat cor

related .1 and .26) res+ecti!ely) "ith intellience. Scher,er

and ernon #2010$ redced 20 +ersonality scales to a sinle

eneral (actor o( +ersonality that correlated .27 "ith intelli

ence. hese athors +ro+osed that hih scores on the

eneral +ersonality (actor re+resent hih sel(estee,)

e,otional sta 'ility) areea'leness) conscientiosness) and

o+ennessAall stronly +ositi!e attri'tes. *( intellient

indi!idals see the,sel!es as +ossessin sch attri'tes)

then they ,iht ha!e less need (or the sel(enhance,ent

(nction o( reliion.

Religiosity as attachment. Oir:+atric: #200$ +ro+osed

that reliios 'elie(s can 'e conce+tali;ed as an

attach,ent syste, #Io"l'y) 1980$) "hich can con(ersecrity and sa(ety in ti,es o( distress. Ielie!ers) sested

Oir:+atric:) e+erience +ersonal lo!e o( =od #or so,e

other s+ernat ral entity$ "hose o,ni+resence ser!es as

re(e and sa(e ha!en. here are t"o ,odels o( the

association 'et"een reli iosity and attach,ent

#=ran?!ist) Di:lincer) E Sha!er)

20105 Oir:+atric:) 1998$. ccordin to the (irst) the co,

+ensation ,odel) +eo+le trn to =od as an attach,ent

(ire "hen they e+erience loss de to se+aration) death o(

lo!ed ones) and other dire circ,stances. ccordin to the

second) the corres+ondence ,odel) +eo+le etend to =od

the sa,e attach,ent syste, that they ha!e de!elo+ed "ith

close oth ers. his latter ,odel does not +osit a clearreliios (nc tion and) there(ore) is not rele!ant to the

notion o( (nctional e?i!alence.

here is stron s++ort (or the co,+ensation ,odel. or

ea,+le) S. Q. Iro"n) Fesse) Nose) and Gt; #2004$ (ond

that reliiosity increased (ollo"in 'erea!e,ent and) in

trn) "as associated "ith less rie(. K!idence also indicates

that reliiosity increases a(ter +eo+le are e+osed to threat

o( loneliness #K+ley) :alis) Mayt;) E Cacio++o) 2008$. *n

t"o other stdies #Oir:+atric: E Sha!er) 19925 Oir:+atric:)

Shillito) E Oellas) 1999$) +artici+ants re+ortin a secre +er

sonal relationshi+ "ith =od also re+orted less loneliness.

*ntellience also lo"ers loneliness throh its e((ects on

,arital relations. S+eci(ically) e!idence sests that ,ore

intellient +eo+le are ,ore li:ely to ,arry and less li:ely to

et di!orced. er,an and den #1947$ re+orted that) as o(

the 1930s) the +re!alence o( ,arriae in their hih *B

sa,+le eceeded that o( the eneral +o+lation. Si,ilarly)

Bensel #198$ (ond that as intellience increases) so does

the li:eli hood o( 'ein ,arried. Nerrnstein and Drray

#1994$ (ond that 'y ae 30) ,arriae rates are lo"er at

hih and lo" ends o( the intellience s+ectr,. No"e!er)

the lo" ,arriae rate o'ser!ed a,on hihly intellient

+eo+le cold re(lect a ten dency o( ,ore intellient +eo+le

to ,arry late. Ila;ys #2009$ ea,ined ,arriae rates + to

an a!erae ae o( 43 and (ond that ,ore intellient

+eo+le are less li:ely to ,arry


35/53


36/53

Zuckerman et al. 21

#200$ ared) !ie" reliios ritals and +ractice at least as

i,+ortant or central as reliios 'elie(s. Perha+s) then) the

stroner neati!e relation 'et"een intellience and reliios

'elie(s #relati!e to reliios 'eha!ior$ ,ay 'e less tre (or

Tdais, and Catholicis,. hat is) "hen Tdais, and

Catholicis, are concerned) +erha+s the conce+t o(

(nctional e?i!alence ,iht enco,+ass not only the

(nction o( reli ios 'elie(s) 't also the (nctions o(

reliios +ractice. his isse is le(t (or (tre research.7

*ther%nter&retations

s ,entioned in the introdction) Oana;a"a #2010a$ and

Sher:at #2010$ +ro+osed t"o additional inter+retations o(

the neati!e relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity.

Oana;a"a #2010a$ ared that ,ore intellient +eo+le are

'etter e?i++ed to deal "ith e!oltionarily no!el +heno,

ena) incldin atheis,. Sher:at sested that sectarian

a((iliations and Christian (nda,entalis, 'loc: access toseclar :no"lede and) there'y neati!ely i,+act !er'al

a'ility. Me co,,ent 'rie(ly on these !ie"s 'elo".

Oana;a"as #2010a$ inter+retation is 'ased on the

ass,+tion that e!oltion (a!ored the de!elo+,ent o( reli

ion. his ass,+tion is readily acce+ta'le) +articlarly in

!ie" o( the (nctions that reliion see,s to +ro!ide. Ne also

ared that atheis, is e!oltionarily no!el 'ecase) ece+t

(or (or,er co,,nist societies) it is not ,entioned in the

descri+tion o( any cltre in +he ncyclo#edia of orld

Cultures. No"e!er) it is rather di((iclt to "rite a'ot athe

is, 'ecase) nli:e theis,) it does not +rodce #reliios$

relics and is not associated "ith #reliios$ csto,s. hs)

althoh it is not ,entioned in the ncyclo#edia) atheis,cold ha!e eisted all alon) toether "ith theis,. *n addi

tion) it is +ossi'le to consider ,onotheis, as e!oltionarily

no!el instead o( +art and +arcel o( all +recedin 'elie(s in

the s+ernatral5 this "ill neate the 'asic rationale o(

Oana;a"as #2010a$ a++roach. inally) it is not clear that

atheis, 'elons to the cateory o( e!oltionarily no!el

#ro"- le*s that intellience addresses #nless atheis, is

consid ered +ro'le,atic 'ecase it does not +ro!ide the

(nctions that reliion does$.

n the other hand and in line "ith Oana;a"as #2010a$

,odel) enetic in(lences ha!e 'een i,+licated not only in

intellience #c(.) Fis'ett et al.) 2012'$) 't also in reliiosity

#no(rio) Ka!es) Drrelle) Daes) E S+il:a) 19995

Ooeni) Dc=e) E *acono) 2008$. rther,ore) the ,odel

"as sed to +redict other correlates o( intellience #e..)

+olitical li'er alis, and) (or ,en) ,onoa,y$) and those

+redictions recei!ed e,+irical s++ort. *n conclsion)

Oana;a"as #2010a$ inter+retation re,ains an intriin

+ossi'ility.

Sher:ats #2010$ inter+retation) "hile li,ited to Christian

(nda,entalis, and !er'al a'ility) alerts s to so,e +oten

tial e((ects o( reliiosity on intellience. *t is li:ely that sch

e((ects ta:e ti,e to de!elo+) as those "ho are denied

learnin (all ,ore and ,ore 'ehind) o!er ti,e) in

co,+arison "ith


37/53

those "ith access to :no"lede. test o( these e((ects

re?ires a lonitdinal stdy.

,ra9ectory of the %ntelligence+Religiosity"onnection

he ,echanis,s throh "hich intellience a((ects reliios

ity ,ay !ary across the li(e s+an. t collee) (or ea,+le),ore intellient stdents ,ay 'e ,ore li:ely to e,'race

atheis, as a (or, o( noncon(or,ity5 at a ,ore ad!anced

ae) intellient +eo+le ,ay 'e ,ore li:ely to e,'race

atheis, 'ecase they are ,ore li:ely to 'e ,arried and)

there(ore) ,ay 'e less reliant on the attach,ent (nction that

reliion +ro!ides. Me address in the (ollo"in section) the

?estion o( "hen ,ediators o( the intellience%reliiosity

relation co,e into +lay. *,+ortantly) this section does not

re!ie" the li(e s+an traectory o( reliiosity5 rather) "e (ocs

only on the relation o( reliiosity "ith intellience. *n

addition) ,ch o( the (ollo"in discssion is s+eclati!e.

N,an 'eins are +sycholoically +redis+osed to

de!elo+ reliios 'elie(s #Iarrett) 20045 Ioyer) 20015

=thrie) 1993$. Iiases or tendencies o( the h,an ,ind that

s++ort reliios ity inclde ,isattri'tions o( intent to

natrally occrrin e!ents #Oele,en) 20045 Oele,en E

Rosset) 2009$ and 'elie( in dise,'odied ,ind as an attri'te

o( s+ernatral deities #Ierin) 20065 Iloo,) 20075

Foren;ayan) =er!ais) E r;esnie"s:i) 2012$. s noted

herein'e(ore) ho"e!er) =er!ais) Millard) et al. #2011$

ared con!incinly that !ari ations in 'elie(s across

societies de+end hea!ily on social contets. hat is) an

indi!idal is li:ely to 'elie!e only in s+ernatral entities

that are es+osed in that +ersons sr rondins5 in

reliios societies) those "ho do other"ise ris: 'einla'eled as heretics. his contet'ond a++roach ,iht

e+lain the "ea: relation 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity in +recollee +o+lations.

rin adolescence) there is a stron relation 'et"een

reliiosity o( +arents and that o( their children #Ca!alli

S(or;a) eld,an) Chen) E orn'sch) 19825 =i'son)

rancis) E Pearson) 19905 Noe) Petrillo) E S,ith) 1982$.

s adolescents ro" older) these associations decrease sch

that correlations 'et"een childhood reliios sociali;ation

and reliiosity in adlthood are "ea: or noneistent #rnett

E Tensen) 20025 Noe) Tohnson) E Qidens) 19935 Millits

E Crider) 1989$. *( reliiosity in adolescence is larely a

(nc tion o( +arental instrctions and ea,+le) then it "ill'e only ,ini,ally in(lenced 'y attri'tes o( the +erson)

incldin intellience.

Collee e+oses +eo+le to ne" ideas and in(lences)

"hich can i,+act reliios 'elie(s. Stdents 'elie(s 'eco,e

,ore seclar in collee #n: E Millits) 19875 Dadsen E

ernon) 1983$) and reliios ser!ice attendance decreases

#Nns'erer) 19785 Qe(:o"it;) 200$. No"e!er) there are

also re+orts o( an increase in reliios co,,it,ent and

intrinsic reliiosity drin this +eriod #e Naan E

Schlen'er) 19975 Stol;en'er) IlairQoy) E Maite)

199$.


38/53


hese chanes are o(ten a conse?ence o( the sel(e+lora

tion that ty+i(ies e,erin adlthood and that is o(ten

o'ser!ed in collee stdents #rnett) 1997) 19985 =reene)

Mheatley) E lda!a) 19925 Qe(:o"it;) 200$. he se+ara

tion (ro, ho,e and the e+osre to a contet that encor

aes ?estionin ,ay allo" intellience to i,+act reliios

'elie(s. Gsin analytic #as o++osed to intiti!e$ thin:in)

,ore intellient collee stdents ,ay 'e ,ore li:ely to

esche" reliion. *( atheis, is disa++ro!ed o( at ho,e)

hiher intellience ,ay (acilitate resistance to con(or,ity

+ressre. hese ,echanis,s ,iht e+lain "hy the neati!e

relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity increases in

collee. No"e!er) as noted 'y Oosa and Scho,,er #1961$)

reliios collees ,ay o((er an ece+tion to this trend.

he e+loration that characteri;es the collee years con

tines later #rnett E Tensen) 2002$. No"e!er) those "ho

transition to atheis, drin collee ,ay (ace nantici+ated

challenes. tside o( acade,ic contets) ,ost societies

are reliios) and atheists are !ie"ed "ith distrst#=er!ais) Shari(() et al.) 2011$. Me s+eclate that ,ore

intellient +eo+le are 'etter a'le to address these

challenes throh so,e o( the a(ore,entioned

intelliencerelated (nctions. hese (nctions ,ay ta:e

ti,e to de!elo+. or ea,+le) intellient +eo+le ty+ically

s+end ,ore ti,e in schoolAa (or, o( sel(relation that

,ay yield lonter, 'ene(its. Dore intellient +eo+le et

hiher le!el o's #Nerrnstein E Drray) 1994$) and 'etter

e,+loy,ent #and hiher salary$ ,ay lead to hiher sel(

estee,) and encorae +ersonal control 'elie(s. Qast)

,ore intellient +eo+le are ,ore li:ely to et and stay

,arried #reater attach,ent$) thoh (or intellient +eo+le)

that too co,es later in li(e #Ila;ys)2009$. Me there(ore sest that as intellient +eo+le ,o!e

(ro, yon adlthood to adlthood and then to ,iddle ae)

the 'ene(its o( intellience ,ay contine to accre. hs)

a(ter collee) the deree to "hich intellience o'!iates the

(nctions o( reliion ,ay radally increase o!er ti,e.

he reliios +ractices and 'elie(s ado+ted drin

collee and in s'se?ent years are o(ten retained (or the

re,ainder o( the li(e s+an. DcClloh et al. #200$

re+orted that #nli:e the "ea: relation 'et"een reliiosity in

the +recol lee years and reliiosity in adlthood$ there is

considera'le ran:order sta'ility in reliiosity (ro, the early

20s to the end o( li(e. No"e!er) these in!estiators also

noted that in addition to interindi!idal sta'ility) there are

also intraindi !idal chanes as +eo+le increase and

decrease in reliiosity o!er ti,e. or ea,+le) ,ost +eo+le

'eco,e ,ore reliios "hen they et ,arried and ha!e

children) 't 'eco,e less reliios "hen their children lea!e

ho,e #*nersollayton) Orase) E Doran) 20025

DcClloh et al.) 2005 Sher:at

E Milson) 1995 Stol;en'er et al.) 199$. *( the ran: order

o( reliiosity is sta'le) then its relation to intellience shold

also 'e sta'le.

No"e!er) ain #+articlarly i( acco,+anied 'y

declinin health$ is li:ely to increase a"areness o(

,ortality. Reliios 'elie(s can hel+ ,anae the terror o(

ones i,+endin death


39/53

#(or a re!ie") see ail et al.) 2010$. his (nction "as not

inclded in or discssion o( (nctional e?i!alence

'ecase) to the 'est o( or :no"lede) there is no e!idence

+ertainin to the relation 'et"een intellience and death

aniety. lthoh this loic sests that the neati!e

relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity ,iht decline

at the end o( li(e) the rele!ant e!idence "e ha!e indicates

other"ise. he hihly intellient ,e,'ers o( er,ans

sa,+le retained lo"er reliiosity scores #relati!e to the

eneral +o+lation$ e!en at 7 to 91 years o( ae #a'le 9$.dditional research is needed to resol!e this isse.

:imitations

he a!aila'le data did not allo" ade?ate consideration o(

the role o( reliion ty+e and o( cltre. s ,entioned

herein'e (ore) the articles inclded in the ,etaanalysis did

not +ro!ide enoh in(or,ation to code reliion ty+e as a

+otential ,od erator. here "as also not enoh

in(or,ation to consider the role o( cltre in the

intellience%reliiosity association. ( the 41 stdies in the

collee and nocollee ro+s #the +o+ lations on "hich"e 'ase ,ost o( or conclsions$) 33 "ere condcted in the

Gnited States5 the re,ainder "ere condcted in Canada #3$)

stralia #2$) Ieli, and Nolland #1 each$5 (inally) one

stdy "as condcted in se!eral contries 't +ri ,arily

#87 o( +artici+ants$ in the Gnited States) Canada) and the

Gnited Oindo,. Clearly) the +resent reslts are li, ited to

Mestern societies.

Karlier "e allded to so,e +ossi'le e((ects o( reliion

ty+e and cltre. S+eci(ically) it "as ,entioned that the

e,+hasis on 'elie(s as the intrinsic co,+onent o( reliiosity

#and) as sch) the co,+onent "ith stroner neati!e relation

to intellience$ ,iht 'e an attri'te o( ,erican Protestant

reliion) and ,ay 'e less tre o( Tdais, and Catholicis,

#Cohen et al.) 200$. Stated di((erently) the stroner

neati!e relation o( intellience "ith reliios 'elie(s ,ay

also 'e li,ited to ,erican Protestant +o+lation.

Me also ,entioned a'o!e that atheis, is not li:ely to 'e

considered noncon(or,ist in ,aority atheist societies) li:e

Scandina!ian societies #P. Jc:er,an) 2008$. theis, ,ay

also lose its association "ith noncon(or,ity in ,aority

athe ist s'cltres) sch as the s'cltre o( scientists

#Qarson E Mitha,) 1998$. ne ,iht e!en s+eclate that in

,aority atheist societies) atheis, is associated "ith

con(or,ity rather than noncon(or,ity. K!en in these

societies) ho"e!er) se!eral other +ro+osed cases o( theneati!e relation 'et"een intel lience and reliiosity

re,ain intact. irst) reliion re,ains neati!ely lin:ed to

analytic style) "hich characteri;ed ,ore intellient +eo+le.

Second) althoh reliion in atheist society is not li:ely to

'e sel(enhancin) it +ro'a'ly contines to +ro!ide (nctions

sch as co,+ensatory control) 'etter sel( relation) and a

,eans o( redcin loneliness throh attach ,ent to =od.

o the etent that intellient +eo+le ha!e less need (or these

(nctions) they are less li:ely to 'e reliios. '!iosly)

these conclsions are a to+ic (or (tre research.


40/53

2 2

Zuckerman et al. 23

ne last li,itation o( the +resent "or: is the lac: o( e!i

dence s++ortin or e+lanations (or the intellience%reli

iosity association. Kce+t (or the etre,e case o( reliios

(nda,entalis, #Sher:at) 2010$) "e clearly +osited a casal

relation (ro, intellience to reliion and identi(ied s+eci(ic

,echanis,s to accont (or it. s descri'ed 'elo") the

edi(ice "e 'ilt is in need o( e,+irical testin.

*onclusion

he +resent "or: co,+rises t"o +arts. he (irst +art "as a

,etaanalysis o( the relation 'et"een intellience and relii

osity. he second +art ea,ined +ossi'le e+lanations (or

the relation that "as o'ser!ed.

Reslts o( the ,etaanalysis esta'lished a relia'le nea

ti!e relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity. *t "as also

sho"n that this relation is "ea:er in +recollee +o+lations

relati!e to collee and noncollee +o+lations. dditional

analyses de,onstrated that the relation is ,ore neati!e

"hen reliiosity ,easres assessed reliios 'elie(s aso++osed to reliios 'eha!iors. *t "as +ro+osed that reli

ios 'elie(s are ,ore li:ely to re+resent intrinsic reliiosity

#and +erha+s trer@ reliion$) at least (or the sa,+les ea,

ined herein. t the +recollee le!el) the ,ean correlation

#n"eihted and "eihted$ 'et"een intellience and

'elie(s 'ased ,easres o( reliiosity "as .085 at collee

and non collee le!els) the corres+ondin n"eihted and

"eihted ,ean correlations raned (ro, .20 to .2.

Me re!ie"ed a n,'er o( e+lanations (or the neati!e

relation 'et"een intellience and reliiosity) as "ell as the

reasons that this association chanes "ith ae. ll o( the

+ro +osed e+lanations in!ol!e ,ediators that are lin:ed to

intel

,iht also 'e e+anded to e+lain lo"er reliiosity o( other

distinct ro+s "ho are in less need o( the (nctions that

reli ion +ro!ides. inally) (nctional e?i!alence ,iht 'e

co, +le,ented 'y a conce+t o( (nctional de(iciency.

*nas,ch as +eo+le +ossessin the (nctions that reliion

+ro!ides are li:ely to ado+t atheis,) +eo+le lac:in these

!ery (nctions #e..) the +oor) the hel+less$ are li:ely toado+t theis,.

Acknowledgments

Me than: the in!estiators "ho +ro!ided additional in(or,ation

a'ot their stdies at or re?est. Me are +articlarly rate(l to

Darie K. Qach,an "ho) in res+onse to or in?iry) sent s a co,

+ilation o( data (ro, her +'lished articles on the relation 'et"een

intellience and +ersonal control 'elie(s5 and to Satoshi Oana;a"a

(or +er(or,in a n,'er o( statistical analyses on his data) and

in!aria'ly sendin s the reslts on the sa,e day he recei!ed or

?ery. Me than: da, Iroit,an) Dinsi Qai) and Harit;a Pere; (or

their in!ala'le assistance in the +re+aration o( this article.

6eclaration o+ *on+licting Interests

he athor#s$ declared no +otential con(licts o( interest "ith

res+ect to the research) athorshi+) and/or +'lication o( this

article.

7unding

he athor#s$ recei!ed no (inancial s++ort (or the research)

athor shi+) and/or +'lication o( this article.

8otes

1. Oana;a"a condcted these analyses in res+onse to or re?est

#S. Oana;a"a) +ersonal co,,nication) +ril 2012$.

2. he (or,la (or correctin r (or rane restriction is #Sac:ett E

Han) 2000$-

lience and reliiosity. or ea,+le) one o( the (nctional

inter+retations "as that intellience and reliiosity allo" the ^_

W1\r2

#S. /s. $r

#S /s

)

1$1/ 2

indi!idal to eercise 'etter sel(relation) and that intelli

ence leads to lo"er reliiosity 'ecase it o'!iates the need.y

.y

.y . .

"here S ands are standard de!iations o( the nrestricted and. .

(or the sel(relatory (nction o( reliion. No"e!er) "ith restricted . distri'tions) res+ecti!ely5 r.y

is the correlation

the ece+tion o( Shenha! et al. #2011$ and Pennycoo: et al.

#2012$) the ,etaanaly;ed stdies did not ,easre the +ro

+osed ,ediators) ths +recldin the +ossi'ility o(

,ediation analyses. *n addition) "e (ond no lonitdinal

research that ea,ined the relation 'et"een intellience and

reliiosity at se!eral ti,e +oints. hese li,itations can 'e

o!erco,e throh (tre research that tili;es a

lonitdinal desin and assesses intellience) reliiosity)

and the +ro+osed ,edi ators. Sch research ,iht shed

liht on the casal direction o( the intellience%reliiosity

relation and on or +ro+osed e+lanations (or this relation.

n a ,ore eneral le!el) the (nctional a++roach to reli

ion #Sedi:ides) 2010$ is in its in(ancy. *n (tre) the list o(

(nctions is li:ely to 'e e+anded and the relations a,on

(nctions are li:ely to 'e ela'orated. *t re,ains to 'e seen

"hether hiher intellience con(ers not only the (nctions

discssed in this +a+er 't also (nctions that are yet to 'e

disco!ered. *n addition) the conce+t o( (nctional

e?i!alence


41/53

'et"een. andy (or the restricted. distri'tion #see Sac:ett E

Han) 2000) (or a eneral discssion o( rane restriction and

a classi(ication sche,e o( ranerestriction scenarios$.

3. *n the ,etaanalysis) "e sed the ra" ncorrected@ correla

tion that Iertsch and Pesta #2009$ re+orted.

4. he (or,la (or con!ertin r to Cohens d is #Rosenthal)

1991$-

d 2r

.1r

2

. he tri, and (ill ,ethod identi(ied r .23 (or the collee

ro+) "hich 'eco,es r .33) a(ter correction (or rane

restriction. his latter !ale is hiher than "eihted and

n"eihted ,ean correlations in the noncollee ro+.

No"e!er) this !ale is hy+othetical and shold 'e treated "ith

cation.

6. Deans on the 1to3 scale "ere rescaled to ,eans on the 0to4

scale 'y s'tractin one +oint (ro, each ,ean and

,lti+lyin the di((erence 'y 2 #e..) a ,ean o( 3 on the 1to

3 scale "ill 'eco,e a ,ean o( 4 on the 0to4 scale$5

standard de!iations


42/53


o( scores on the 1to3 scale "ere ,lti+lied 'y 2 to acco,

+lish the sa,e rescalin +rocedre.

7. Fote also the +arado that or e,+hasis on intrinsic reliios

ity creates. n one hand) "e sest that it is intrinsic reli

iosity #a:a reliios 'elie(s$ that +ro!ides the (nctions

co,,on to reliiosity and intellience. n the other hand)

any discssion o( the (nctions that reliion ,ay +ro!ide)treats reliiosity as etrinsic rather than intrinsic. dditional

co, +lications arise 'ecase o( the +ro+osed distinction

'et"een t"o (or,s o( etrinsic reliiosityAsocial etrinsic

orientation #attain,ent o( social 'ene(its$ and +ersonal

etrinsic orienta tion #o!erco,in +ersonal +ro'le,s5

=orsch EDcPherson)

1989$. *nterestinly) lere and Qa!ric #2008$ sho"ed that in

reliios ro+s other than ,erican Protestant sa,+le) +er

sonal etrinsic and intrinsic reliios orientations (or, a sin

le di,ension that is distinct (ro, social etrinsic orientation.

Clearly) intrinsic and etrinsic reliios orientations are not as

distinct as they a++eared to 'e in ll+ort and Rosss #1967$

oriinal conce+tali;ation.

Re+erences

c:er,an) P.) Ieier) D. K.) E Ioyle) D. . #200$. Mor:in

,e,ory and intellience- he sa,e or di((erent constrcts]

Psychological /ulletin) 010) 3060.

ll+ort) =. M.) E Ross) T. D. #1967$. Personal reliios orientation

and +redice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)

2) 432433. doi-10.1037/h0021212

re) .) Tohnson) . R.) E Mhite) Q. O. #1999$. e and

reliiosity- K!idence (ro, a three"a!e +anel analysis.

Journal for the Scientif ic Study of Religion) 13) 42343.

doi-10.2307/1387762

ryle) D. #198$. Religious "ehaviour. Qondon) Knland-

Rotlede.ryle) D.) E IeitNallah,i) I. #197$. +he social #sychology of

religion. Qondon) Knland- Rotlede.

rnett) T. T. #1997$. Hon +eo+les conce+tions o( the transition

to adlthood. 4outh 5 Society) 67) 323. doi-10.1177/00441

18X97029001001

rnett) T. T. #1998$. Qearnin to stand alone- he conte,+orary

,erican transition to adlthood in cltral and historical con

tet. 8u*an )evelo#*ent) 90) 2931.

doi-10.119/00002291

rnett)T.T.)ETensen)Q..#2002$.conreationo(one-*ndi!idali;ed

reliios 'elie(s a,on e,erin adlts.Journal of %dolescent

Research) 0:) 41467. doi-10.1177/0743840217002

tran) S.) E Foren;ayan) . #2004$. Reliions e!oltionary land

sca+e- Conterintition) co,,it,ent) co,+assion) co,,nion./ehavioral 5 /rain Science) 6:) 713770. doi-10.1017/

S01402X04000172

Iandra) . #1997$. Self-efficacy; +he e.ercise of control. Fe"

Hor:) FH- ree,an.

Iarratt) K. S. #198$. *,+lsi!eness s'straints- rosal and

in(or,ation +rocessin. *n T. . S+ence) E C. K. *;ard #Kds.$)

&otivations, e*otions and #ersonality #++. 137146$. Forth

Nolland) Fetherlands- Klse!ier.

Iarrett) T. Q. #2004$. hy would anyone "elieve in


43/53

Iec:"ith) I. P. #1986$. he e((ect o( intellience on reliios (aith.

Free Inuiry) >) 463.

IeitNallah,i) I.) E ryle) D. #1997$. +he #sychology of

religious "ehavior, "elief, and e.#erience. Fe" Hor:) FH-

Rotlede.

Iell) P. #2002) e'rary$. Mold yo 'elie!e it]&ensa &aga?ine)

1213.Retrie!ed (ro, """.s.,ensa.or/'lletin

VIender) *. K. #1968$. lonitdinal stdy o( chrch attenders and

nonattenders. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion) :)

230237. doi-10.2307/1384630

Ierin) T. D. #2006$. he (ol: +sycholoy o( sols. /ehavioral5 /rain Sciences) 67) 43462. doi-10.1017/S01402X0

6009101

VIertsch) S.) E Pesta) I. T. #2009$. he "onderlic +ersonnel test

and ele,entary coniti!e tas:s as +redictors o( reliios sec

tarianis,) scri+tral acce+tance and reliios ?estionin.

Intelligence) 1:) 231237. doi-10.1016/.intell.2008.10.003

VIlanchardields) .) Nert;o) C.) Stein) R.) E Pa:) R. #2001$.

Ieyond a stereoty+ed !ie" o( older adlts traditional (a,ily

!ales.Psychology and %ging) 0>) 483496.

doi-10.1037/0882

7974.16.3.483

Ila;ys) =. #2009$.Personality, intelligence, and *arital outco*es

#Mor:in Pa+er$. Gni!er

Documents

The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity