1 / 118

Ghosts, God, and Vaccine Hesitancy:

Ghosts, God, and Vaccine Hesitancy:. The Relationship between Experience and Belief. William Langston, Department of Psychology. Ghosts, God, and Vaccine Hesitancy:. The Relationship between Experience and Belief. William Langston, Department of Psychology. Outline.

amyjjohnson
Télécharger la présentation

Ghosts, God, and Vaccine Hesitancy:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ghosts, God, and Vaccine Hesitancy: The Relationship between Experience and Belief William Langston, Department of Psychology

  2. Ghosts, God, and Vaccine Hesitancy: The Relationship between Experience and Belief William Langston, Department of Psychology

  3. Outline • The Relationship between Experience and Belief • Ghosts: Foundation. • God: Discrimination. • Vaccine Hesitancy: Application.

  4. Research Team • Tyler Hubbard • Jeannie Carlson • Nikki Gibson • Emily Shields • David Pitchford • Jesse Lemaster • Iska Frosh • Doniqua Joyner • John Murphy • Jesse Gammons • Michael Baker • Samantha Schultz • Timothy Bodey • Triskal DeHaven • Jesse Bradford • Kevin Anderson • Micah D’Archangel • Christof Fehrman • Catherine York • Jake Davis • Emory Bibb

  5. Research Team

  6. What’s the deal with ghosts?

  7. Why ghosts? • Ghosts are an ideal laboratory for exploring belief. • Consequential misbeliefs: • Incels.

  8. Consequential misbeliefs… https://www.timsquirrell.com/blog/2018/5/30/a-definitive-guide-to-incels-part-one-incelocalypse

  9. Consequential misbeliefs… • “You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren't attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It’s an injustice, a crime, because ... I don't know what you don’t see in me. I'm the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at these obnoxious men instead of me, the supreme gentleman.” • Elliot Rodger manifesto (6 dead, 14 injured) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Manifesto_and_online_posts)

  10. The program

  11. The program • One set of variables influences the formation of belief: Something happens Some variables Experience Some variables Belief Freeman, Garety, Kuipers, Fowler, & Bebbington, 2002

  12. The program • Different variables influence the maintenance and updating of belief: Freeman, Garety, Kuipers, Fowler, & Bebbington, 2002

  13. The program • Assumptions: • Belief arises from experience and reflects a rational response to experience. • Understanding the experiential foundations of belief will be complicated. • Understanding the experiential foundations of belief will be necessary to understand how to change consequential misbeliefs. • But, the variables that affect belief change are likely different from the variables affecting belief formation.

  14. Ghosts

  15. Question • What is the relationship between experience and belief?

  16. Method • Measure: • Experience. • Belief. • Personality. • Behavior. • Demographics. • Winnow and sift with reckless abandon.

  17. Method • Measure: • Experience. • Belief. • Personality. • Behavior. • Demographics. • Winnow and sift with reckless abandon.

  18. Method • Sample: • Recruited by students in research methods; two waves. • N = 197 (308 started, completed <90% N = 94, said their data should be excluded N = 17).

  19. Method

  20. Method • Sample: • Recruited by students in research methods; two waves. • N = 197 (308 started, completed <90% N = 94, said their data should be excluded N = 17). • Average age = 32.9 (SD = 14.33; 18-79; Nreporting = 196); 60 male, 132 female. • Average religious intensity = 5.32 (SD = 3.46; 1-11; Nreporting = 192); 57 typically attend weekly religious service, 135 do not. • 29 high school or GED, 61 some college/no degree; 29 associates degree, 48 bachelor’s degree; 19 at least some graduate education.

  21. Method • Experience: • Personal ghost encounter(number of encounters, age at first encounter, fear, quality, intensity). • Personal paranormal experience (number of experiences, number of types). • Close other’s ghost (source, age when told, PANAS, fear, quality, intensity, investment, source credibility X3). • Close other’s paranormal (source, number of types). • Story ghost (fear, quality, intensity, investment). • Story paranormal (source, number of types). • TV ghost shows; TV ghost/paranormal shows; TV paranormal shows (number of shows, number of viewings, credibility).

  22. Method • Belief: • Ghost scale (Cronbach alpha = .86): • I believe in the existence of ghosts (Wiseman, Watt, Greening, Stevens, & O’Keeffe, 2002). • The soul continues to exist though the body may die (Traditional Religious Belief subscale, PBS, Tobacyk & Milford, 1983). • It is possible to communicate with the dead (Spiritualism subscale, , PBS, Tobacyk & Milford, 1983). • It is possible for places to be haunted (Laythe & Owen, 2012).

  23. Method • Personality: • Sensation seeking. • Private body consciousness. • Schizotypy (SPQ-B; cognitive-perceptual, interpersonal, disorganized). • Transliminality. • Empathy (BES; contagion, empathy, disconnection). • Big 5 (I, C, E, A, N). • Paranoia. • Emotion regulation (ERQ; reappraisal, suppression). • Critical thinking (systematicity & analyticity, inquisitiveness & conversance, maturity & skepticism). • Self consciousness (private, public, social anxiety). • Absorption. • Locus of control. • Cognitive biases for psychosis (intentionalizing, catastrophizing, dichotomous thinking, jumping to conclusions, emotional reasoning; threatening event, anomalous perceptual).

  24. What have they experienced?

  25. Results Belief

  26. Results Belief

  27. Four Two analyses • Group comparisons. • Is experience related to belief in ghosts? • How does an event turn into an experience? • What aspects of experience predict belief?

  28. First analysis • Group comparisons.

  29. Crosstab comparison Lawrence & Peters (2004, p. 730; belief is out-of-body experiences, mediums, and ESP)

  30. Results • Personal ghost encounter: Belief

  31. Results • Personal and other’s experiences (ghost and paranormal): Belief

  32. Compare the four groups: • Experience.

  33. Results • Low Experience/Low Belief (N = 30) Belief

  34. Results • Low Experience/High Belief (N = 3) Belief

  35. Results • High Experience/Low Belief (N = 67) Belief

  36. Results • High Experience/High Belief (N = 90) Belief

  37. Results • Low Experience/Low Belief (N = 30) Belief

  38. Results • Low Experience/High Belief (N = 3) Belief

  39. Results • High Experience/Low Belief (N = 67) Belief

  40. Results • High Experience/High Belief (N = 90) Belief

  41. Compare the four groups: • Personality.

  42. Results • Personality differences between the groups: Belief *p < .001

  43. Results • Personality differences between the groups: Belief *p < .001

  44. Results • Personality differences between the groups: Belief *p < .001

  45. Second analysis • Is experience related to belief in ghosts?

  46. Results Belief *p < .001

  47. Results Belief *p < .001

  48. Results • Specificity of experience: Predict ghost belief: Belief Variables not entered: N/A

  49. Ghost Summary • There is a relationship between experience and belief. • Personal experiences carry more weight. • Ghost experiences carry more weight (some specificity). • The overall experience belief groups differ.

More Related