Alex Uzdavines

Perceived Addiction to Internet Pornography among Religious Believers and Nonbelievers

abstract Prior research suggests that there is a relationship between religiousness and perceived addiction to Internet pornography. This research also suggests a positive relationship between perceived addiction and psychological distress. However, due to the measures of religiousness used, little is known about perceived addiction among nonbelievers in Gods existence. In a sample of U.S. adults (N = 713), we found that higher certainty in Gods existence was associated with higher levels of perceived addiction. We also found that participants who identified as religious, compared to participants who self-labeled as atheist, agnostic, or “none,” reported higher levels of perceived addiction. Finally, we found that perceived addiction was associated with psychological distress (combining anxiety, depression, and general stress), though effect sizes were small. This relationship was not moderated by religious/nonreligious identity or certainty in Gods existence/nonexistence. These findings suggest that perceived addiction to Internet pornography may be a mild risk factor for increased general psychological distress in both believers and nonbelievers, though lower levels of perceived addiction suggest that nonbelievers may be less likely overall to experience psychological distress related to perceived addiction.

The Reasons of Atheists and Agnostics for Nonbelief in God’s Existence Scale: Development and Initial Validation

Research exploring nonbelievers’ reasons for not believing in the existence of god(s) has focused on theory development. Such efforts are valuable, but may not capture the lived experiences of nonbelievers. The current two studies quantitatively examined nonbelievers’ self-reported reasons for nonbelief through developing the Reasons of Atheists and Agnostics for Nonbelief in God’s Existence Scale (RANGES). We developed an initial pool of 64 items using prior published research, revised by a panel of experts including researchers and thought leaders in nonbelief communities. Both studies included participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Study 1 & 2 Ns = 520 & 369), all of whom reported not believing in god(s). In Study 1, our exploratory factor analysis suggested nine factors across 35 items. In Study 2, we confirmed the nine-factor structure using 38 items (35 from Study 1 plus three new items for better coverage of factors with few items) with adequate fit. Across both studies, the RANGES subscales showed good reliability, convergent validity (e.g., positive correlations with previous lists of reasons for religious doubt), predictive validity (e.g., positive and negative feelings toward God and religion), and discriminant validity (e.g., subscales were not unexpectedly associated with other measures). Our 1-year follow-up with a subset of Study 2 participants (N = 132) found different levels of stability among the RANGES subscales. This measure can promote further understanding the motivations, identities, and experiences of nonbelievers across cultures.

Relational reasons for nonbelief in the existence of gods: An important adjunct to intellectual nonbelief.

Can people who do not believe in a god or gods still be influenced by past or present emotional reactions to the concept of a deity? We asked self-labeled atheists (Study 1) and individuals holding atheistic and agnostic views (Study 2) to rate the extent to which their nonbelief was based on negative past relational experiences or negative current views regarding the character of a hypothetical god or gods. Among nonbelievers who reported some history of relational emotion toward or from a god or gods (76% in Study 1, N = 171; 89% in Study 2, N = 429), relational reasons for nonbelief were endorsed by more than half of participants (54% in Study 1 and 72% in Study 2). Among participants with a history of emotion surrounding a god or gods, self-reported importance of relational reasons for nonbelief correlated with other indicators of negative, but not positive, attitudes and past experiences regarding a god or gods. Importance of relational reasons for nonbelief also correlated with other personality factors that tend to interfere with relationship quality, including insecure adult attachment styles, entitlement, and trait anger. Nonbelievers reported that relational reasons for nonbelief were far less important than intellectual reasons for nonbelief. However, these findings suggest that, for some nonbelievers, negative relational experiences with or conceptions of gods are seen as a somewhat important reason for not believing in gods.

God Belief as an Innate Aspect of Human Nature: A Response to John Shook and Questions for Justin Barrett

John Shook’s article “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” (this volume) critiques research findings and writings by Justin Barrett suggesting that god beliefs may be innate among human beings. In response to points raised by Shook, we first discuss several complications that need to be balanced when defining and assessing the innateness hypothesis. Second, we address the question of how both god believers and nonbelievers might have both favorable and unfavorable responses to claims of god beliefs being innate. Third, we consider whether certain additional features, besides (vague) god beliefs themselves, might be part of a human predisposition toward religious belief. We agree with Shook’s claims that researchers’ own beliefs may impact their research questions, methods, and interpretations of findings. Given the pervasive risk of blind spots and biases, we conclude by emphasizing the need for accountability, transparency, skepticism, open-mindedness, and collegiality among scholars.