Maxine Najle

How Many Atheists Are There

One crucible for theories of religion is their ability to predict and explain the patterns of belief and disbelief. Yet, religious nonbelief is often heavily stigmatized, potentially leading many atheists to refrain from outing themselves even in anonymous polls. We used the unmatched count technique and Bayesian estimation to indirectly estimate atheist prevalence in two nationally representative samples of 2,000 U.S. adults apiece. Widely cited telephone polls (e.g., Gallup, Pew) suggest U.S. atheist prevalence of only 3–11%. In contrast, our most credible indirect estimate is 26% (albeit with considerable estimate and method uncertainty). Our data and model predict that atheist prevalence exceeds 11% with greater than .99 probability and exceeds 20% with roughly .8 probability. Prevalence estimates of 11% were even less credible than estimates of 40%, and all intermediate estimates were more credible. Some popular theoretical approaches to religious cognition may require heavy revision to accommodate actual levels of religious disbelief.

A Powerful Nudge? Presenting Calculable Consequences of Underpowered Research Shifts Incentives Toward Adequately Powered Designs

If psychologists have recognized the pitfalls of underpowered research for decades, why does it persist? Incentives, perhaps: underpowered research benefits researchers individually (increased productivity), but harms science collectively (inflated Type I error rates and effect size estimates but low replication rates). Yet, researchers can selectively reward power at various scientific bottlenecks (e.g., peer review, hiring, funding, and promotion). We designed a stylized thought experiment to evaluate the degree to which researchers consider power and productivity in hiring decisions. Accomplished psychologists chose between a low sample size candidate and a high sample size candidate who were otherwise identical. We manipulated the degree to which participants received information about (1) productivity, (2) sample size, and (3) directly calculable Type I error and replication rates. Participants were intolerant of the negative consequences of low-power research, yet merely indifferent regarding the practices that logically produce those consequences, unless those consequences were made quite explicit.

The Illusion of Political Tolerance: Social Desirability and Self-Reported Voting Preferences

Tolerance for diversity in America is often indexed by direct measures, such as self-reported “willingness to vote” polls. However, pressures to be or appear unprejudiced may bias such estimates, yielding misleading and overly optimistic inferences about tolerance in America. The current research investigated the degree to which direct and indirect measures of political candidate preferences converge and diverge across six target groups varying in acceptability of stigmatization (atheists, African Americans, Catholics, gay men and lesbians, Muslims, and women) and across relevant participant demographics. Overall, participants (N = 3,000, nationally representative) reported less willingness to vote for target groups when measured indirectly, relative to directly. Additionally, the divergence between the direct and indirect measures was especially evident for social groups for which overt stigmatization is normatively inappropriate. This research provides a vital benchmark that quantifies the gulf between the direct and indirect measures of tolerance for various oft-stigmatized groups in America.