Dogmatism has usually been related in research to low levels of openness to experience, a personality dimension associated with interest in new and non-traditional ideas. Dogmatism has mostly been studied in relation to religious beliefs but some recent research has looked at dogmatism among non-religious people. One surprising finding was that among self-identified atheists, higher levels of openness to experience were actually associated with greater dogmatism, contrary to the usual pattern. This suggests that the personality dimension openness to experience might not be a marker of open-mindedness as such but more of a preference for unconventional and complex ideas. Perhaps there needs to be a distinction made between humble versus arrogant forms of openness to experience.
Some people do not respond well to disagreement.
Dogmatism
refers to rigid certainty about the correctness of one’s views, along with
refusal to consider alternatives and a conviction that any intelligent person
who has thought things through would agree with one’s own opinions. The
opposite of this is the willingness to consider that one’s own views are not
the only reasonable way of looking at things and that it is possible that one
could be proven wrong. This does not mean that a non-dogmatic person must be
wishy-washy, only that they are willing to consider that other people might
have good reasons for believing what they do and that it is alright for
intelligent people to disagree.
Dogmatism and
openness to experience: polar opposites?
People
can be dogmatic about any subject, e.g. political and lifestyle views, but
dogmatism has mostly been studied among religious believers. Religious beliefs
in general tend to be held more dogmatically than other kinds of beliefs, and people
with fundamentalist beliefs are generally the most dogmatic of all, virtually
by definition. Not surprisingly, religious fundamentalism tends to be
associated with low openness to experience (Saroglou,
2010). Openness to experience is a broad and somewhat heterogeneous
dimension of personality that refers to the breadth and complexity of a
person’s mental life (McCrae & Sutin, 2009).
People low in openness to
experience tend to prefer rather black-and-white views of the world that are
not too complex or intellectually demanding. In contrast, people high in
openness prefer more nuanced ways of looking at things, and feel comfortable
with complex ideas. Openness to experience encompasses a diverse number of narrower traits, and one
of these traits, openness to values, refers to readiness to “re-examine social,
political and religious values” and has even been considered to represent “the
opposite of dogmatism” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, cited in) (Smith, Johnson, & Hathaway, 2009).
Some atheists
can’t stand disagreement
While
it seems generally true that people high in openness to experience,
particularly in the values facet, are least likely to be dogmatic, there may be
some notable exceptions. Re-examining traditional values, for example, does not
necessarily guarantee that one will not become tolerant of differences in
opinion. Some people might reject traditional values and then become dogmatic
adherents of non-traditional ones. One example that I believe fits this
description is an online movement called “Atheism Plus”. This movement,
which emerged just over a year ago in the atheist blogging community, bills
itself as a “positive” approach that aims to combine atheism/scepticism with a
variety of left-liberal political causes associated with the term “social
justice.” Responses to this movement in the atheist/sceptical community have been
less than totally positive. Atheism Plus has been criticised by other atheists as a divisive movement, and a commonly
expressed concern is that members of this group have demonstrated intellectual
arrogance and intolerance of dissent, even on minor matters.[1] They would seem to be high in openness to values yet appear
very dogmatic in their views. A recent research study may sheds some light on
when and why high openness to experience and dogmatism sometimes go together.
Parody of Atheism Plus. See here for another good parody.
Dogmatism and
openness to experience among the non-religious
Studies
on non-religious people have found that they are generally considerably higher
in openness to experience than those who are religious (Galen & Kloet, 2011). People who are non-religious vary
greatly in how they define their lack of religiosity so it can be useful to make
broad distinctions. A recent study did this by comparing people with “no
beliefs in particular” (which I will call “nones” for convenience) and those
self-identifying as atheists (Gurney, McKeown,
Churchyard, & Howlett, 2013). Those who describe themselves as
atheists are more likely to identify themselves as members of a specific group,
whereas nones have no particular group identity. Membership of a group tends to
promote a sense of loyalty to the values of the group along with a sense of
separateness from outsiders, and this can foster dogmatism about the beliefs
and values of one’s group to some extent. A distinguishing feature of an
atheist identity is that qualities associated with openness to experience, such
as challenging traditional beliefs and appreciation of intellectual activity,
are highly valued. This is in contrast to a religious identity, which is more
likely to emphasise conformity to tradition and submission to authority in
matters of belief. Individuals atheists vary in how central atheism is to their
identity overall. Some regard their atheism as simply an absence of belief in
gods, and one attitude among many others they may have. For others though, being
an atheist is a more central and defining part of their self-concept tied to
their core values, such as a belief in the social importance of scepticism and
reason. Gurney et al. therefore argued that insofar as atheists have a social
identity that values high openness to experience, dogmatism among them may be
positively correlated with openness to experience, as opposed to religious
social identities that devalue such openness. They performed a survey to
confirm this, so let’s look at what they found.
The
survey compared a group of atheists, nones, and Christians on measures of
dogmatism and openness to experience. Additionally, atheists and Christians
were asked to rate how strongly they identified with their respective groups.
(Nones have no clear group membership, so this question would not be meaningful
to them.) The number of atheists in the sample (37) was on the small side, so
the study should be seen as a preliminary investigation rather than something
definitive. The measure of dogmatism (the DOG scale) used is content neutral in
that it includes generic statements like “The things I believe in are so completely true, I could never doubt
them” and “It is best to be open to all possibilities and ready to evaluate
all your beliefs” (the latter indicates low dogmatism). The openness to
experience measure
provides an overall score and scores on the subscales of inquisitiveness, aesthetic appreciation, creativity, and
unconventionality. The three groups scored similarly on overall openness,
although atheists scored significantly higher than Christians on inquisitiveness
and unconventionality. Considering atheists’ particular interests, this result
is as expected. The Inquisitiveness measure refers to intellectual curiosity, such as
interest in science, history and political discussion. Items used to measure it
also suggest that is particularly associated with intelligence, e.g. “have a
rich vocabulary” and “avoid difficult reading material” (the latter indicating
the low end of the trait). Unconventionality indicates non-conformity with
social expectations. Unconventionality
appears somewhat similar to openness to values as it includes items such as “rebel against authority”
and “swim against the current” but also includes several items referencing
unusual characteristics, e.g. being eccentric and odd, which may not be quite
as relevant to dogmatism though.
On
the dogmatism measure, atheists did score slightly higher than nones, although
they were substantially lower than Christians. The graph below depicts
dogmatism scores for the three groups.
Dogmatism levels among atheists, nones and Christians. Error bars represent standard deviations.
Dogmatism
was also positively correlated with group identification in both atheists and
Christians. That is the more strongly a person identified as either an atheist
or a Christian, the more dogmatic they were about their respective beliefs. So
atheists who do not attach much significance to their unbelief were less rigid
in their views than those who see atheism as more central to their identity. Additionally
and as expected, correlations between dogmatism and openness to experience
differed among the three groups. Dogmatism was negatively correlated with
openness to experience among nones, and to a lesser extent among Christians. In
the latter group, inquisitiveness in particular was significantly negatively
correlated with dogmatism, indicating that among Christians, the more dogmatic
they were, the less interest they had in intellectual pursuits. This pattern
was reversed among atheists, as overall openness to experience, and the facets
of inquisitiveness,
unconventionality, and creativity were positively associated with dogmatism.
That is, atheists who considered themselves more intellectual, more
non-traditional, and more creative even, were more dogmatically certain about
the correctness of their views and presumably less tolerant of dissenting ones.
Open to experience does not
always mean open-minded
The
association among atheists between higher dogmatism and higher openness to experience,
especially the inquisitiveness facet, is in a way rather surprising. As
previously noted, people high in inquisitiveness are comfortable with complex
concepts so would be expected to have the cognitive flexibility to steer away
from black-and-white thinking usually associated with dogmatism. They also tend
to express an interest in science, and one of the guiding principles of science
is that one should be willing to question one’s preferred theories rather than
cling to them rigidly. Nevertheless, even great scientists sometimes become
overly attached to their pet theories and may defend them dogmatically. Furthermore,
the unconventionality scale refers to being an unusual person with off-beat
ideas but says nothing about the flexibility or rigidity of one’s beliefs. Perhaps
it would be fair to say that high openness to experience indicates a preference
for complex and unusual ideas, but this does not always mean that one will not be
receptive to challenges to these ideas.
Intellectual arrogance versus
intellectual humility
Another
possibility is that there are different varieties of openness to experience
that might be relevant to whether or not a person is dogmatic. Openness to
experience comprises a broad array of traits, some of which combine features of
openness with traits from other distinctive personality dimensions (Johnson, 1994). For example, openness combined
with introversion defines the trait of introspectiveness, whereas openness
combined with extraversion defines a preference for variety and originality. Dogmatism
implies a lack of humility about the rightness of one’s views, an arrogant
assumption that one cannot possibly wrong and that anyone who disagrees is
either stupid or evil. There does not appear to be any research that has
explored what a combination of high openness to experience with low humility
might be, but it sounds like this combination of traits would describe
intellectual arrogance. Perhaps openness to experience in atheists who are also
dogmatic involves a blend of unconventionality and lack of humility that
facilitates an unusual form of dogmatism.
Well, I can think of much more arrogant beliefs...
A
limitation of the Gurney et al. study was that it did not address whether
identity strength (how strongly a person identified as an atheist) and openness
to experience were equally important as predictors of dogmatism or whether one
was more crucial than the other. That is, does openness to experience still
predict dogmatism in atheists when taking into account identity strength or
does it become non-significant? Or conversely, does identity strength still
predict dogmatism when taking openness to experience into account? This could
be tested statistically with a larger sample of atheists. A more difficult
question to answer is why some people have a stronger atheist identity than
others. There was a positive correlation between identity strength and openness
to experience. Do people identify more strongly as atheists because they are high
in openness to experience or does having a strong identity increase openness to
experience? And what is the relationship, if any between low humility and
identity strength? Does adopting a strong identity lead to an arrogant
dismissive attitude towards people who disagree (which I believe to be a
problem with Atheism Plus)? Or is it the case that arrogant people are drawn to
a polarizing identity? Perhaps it is a combination of both, where adopting such
an identity reinforces pre-existing tendencies towards arrogance? Longitudinal
research studies would be needed to answer these questions.
I want to
make it clear that I have no problem with people having a strong atheist
identity, or even people combining atheism with particular political views or
an interest in social justice. What I am concerned about is when people hold
their views in a dogmatic and arrogant manner. One Atheism Plus blogger claimed
that atheism implies not just disbelief in gods but a view of reality in which
highly specific political and economic beliefs are to be regarded as certain
and inconvertible truths. Even in the hard sciences, theories are open to
debate, so I find it incredible he would claim to have certain knowledge in
highly complex and soft disciplines where experts disagree. I think it is
definitely possible for people to have strong well-defined views about things
and yet also realise that their own beliefs are ultimately provisional and
subject to change according to new evidence. Finally I want to acknowledge that
I am aware of many good examples of atheist bloggers[2] who do acknowledge that
people who disagree with them are not necessarily stupid or evil and who do
understand the meaning of being reasonable.
[1] Well known blogger PZ Myers stated for example that critics of Atheism Plus should call themselves “asshole atheists.” He is also notorious for banning dissenting commenters from his blog, among other things.
[2] For example, Triangulations, Atheist Revolution, and The A-Unicornist have all been non-dogmatic in my experience.
Note on layout: Please accept my apologies for any inconsistencies in the appearance of the text. Blogger does strange and unpredictable things to text copied from Word.
© Scott McGreal. Please do not reproduce without
permission. Brief excerpts may be quoted as long as a link to the original
article is provided.
This article also appears on Psychology Today on
my blog Unique
- Like Everybody Else.
Other posts about the psychology of (non-)belief
Image credits
Poster created at http://diy.despair.com/
The
creator of the A+ parody is currently unknown.
References
Galen, L. W., & Kloet, J. (2011).
Personality and Social Integration Factors Distinguishing Nonreligious from
Religious Groups: The Importance of Controlling for Attendance and
Demographics. Archive for the Psychology
of Religion, 33(2), 205-228. doi: 10.1163/157361211x570047
Gurney, D. J., McKeown, S., Churchyard, J., & Howlett, N. (2013). Believe it or not: Exploring the relationship between dogmatism and openness within non-religious samples Personality and Individual Differences DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.471
Johnson, J. A. (1994). Clarification of
Factor Five with the help of the AB5C Model. European Journal of Personality, 8(4), 311-334. doi:
10.1002/per.2410080408
McCrae, R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009).
Openness to Experience. In R. H. H. Mark R. Leary (Ed.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp.
257-273). New York/London: The Guildford Press.
Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness as a
Cultural Adaptation of Basic Traits: A Five-Factor Model Perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1),
108-125. doi: 10.1177/1088868309352322
Smith, C. L., Johnson, J. L., &
Hathaway, W. (2009). Personality Contributions to Belief in Paranormal
Phenomena. Individual Differences
Research, 7(2), 85-96.
No comments:
Post a Comment