Meta-analyzing intelligence and religiosity associations: Evidence from the multiverse

Abstract

Over the past century, a remarkable body of research about the relationship of intelligence and religiosity has accumulated. So far, the majority of studies that investigated this relationship showed a negative correlation, indicating lower cognitive abilities of individuals reporting stronger religious beliefs. Although the effect direction has been observed to be largely consistent across studies, the reported effect strength varied substantially across studies. Several potentially moderating variables such as different intelligence and religiosity assessment methods, educational status of samples, and participant sex have been proposed as likely candidates for explaining systematic differences in effect strengths. However, the effects of these moderators are to date unclear. Consequently, we focused in investigating effects of these moderating variables on the intelligence and religiosity link in an update of prior meta-analytical investigations in n = 89 (k = 105; N = 201,457) studies. Random-effects analyses showed a small but robust negative association between intelligence and religiosity r = -.14 (p < .001; 95% CI [-.17, -.12]). Effects were stronger for (i) psychometric intelligence tests than for proxy measures such as grade point averages and (ii) general population and college samples than pre-college samples. Moreover, we provide evidence from combinatorial, multiverse, and specification curve analyses that further corroborates the robustness of the investigated association. Out of 192 reasonable specifications all 135 (70.4%) significant summary effects were negative. In all, our results show small but robust negative associations between religiosity and intelligence that are differentiated in strength but generalize in terms of direction over moderating variables.

Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations

“…In the present preregistered meta-analysis of the associations between in vivo brain volume and cognitive abilities (intelligence, IQ), we aimed at resolving the ambiguity of available effect estimates by (i) updating the available meta-analytical data base, (ii) assessing subgroup analysis- and meta-regression-based influences of moderators, (iii) investigating evidence of dissemination bias and (iv) providing a range of effect estimates based on a large number of (reasonable) effect syntheses based on evidence from combinatorial, multiverse analysis, and specification-curve approaches to meta-analysis (see [28], for a similarly designed research synthesis).…”

Future Objectivity Requires Perspective and Forward Combinatorial Meta-Analyses

“…Nonetheless, this analysis strategy allows many human biases to be made explicitly visible at an individual studies level and meta-analyses in an unprecedented, systematic way. This has been shown by two recent applications of these approaches, both on a metameta-level: Dürlinger and Pietschnig's (2022) investigation of the association between intelligence and religiosity, and Vilsmeier et al's (2021) analysis of the stability of birth order effects.…”

A Meta-Analysis on Teachers’ Growth Mindset

“…As broad categories for the origin of the sample, we relied on the following world regions: US and Canada, Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia. The quality of the included primary studies was assessed by two independent raters using an adapted version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Wells et al, 2021) as used in the study by Dürlinger and Pietschnig (2022). The studies were evaluated on a set of criteria, encompassing the representativeness of the sample, the sample size, how nonrespondents were handled, the extent of the response rate, and the measurement tools.…”

“…The studies were evaluated on a set of criteria, encompassing the representativeness of the sample, the sample size, how nonrespondents were handled, the extent of the response rate, and the measurement tools. Such ratings yield an index of study quality, which can range from 0 to 5 points, with higher values indicating higher study quality (Dürlinger & Pietschnig, 2022). More information on the quality ratings is provided in Online Supplement S2.…”