Cambridge Psycholinguistic Inventory of Christian Beliefs: A registered report of construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

Kaili Clackson, Nadya Pohran, Riccardo M Galli, Laura Labno, Miguel Farias, Tristan A Bekinschtein, Valdas Noreika

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kaili ClacksonConsciousness and Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK. kc496@cam.ac.uk.

Nadya PohranConsciousness and Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.

Riccardo M GalliConsciousness and Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.

Laura LabnoConsciousness and Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.

Miguel FariasBrain, Belief, and Behaviour Lab, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.

Tristan A BekinschteinConsciousness and Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.

Valdas NoreikaConsciousness and Cognition Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK. v.noreika@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While religious beliefs are typically studied using questionnaires, there are no standardized tools available for cognitive psychology and neuroscience studies of religious cognition. Here we present the first such tool-the Cambridge Psycholinguistic Inventory of Christian Beliefs (CPICB)-which consists of audio-recorded items of religious beliefs as well as items of three control conditions: moral beliefs, abstract scientific knowledge and empirical everyday life knowledge. The CPICB is designed in such a way that the ultimate meaning of each sentence is revealed only by its final critical word, which enables the precise measurement of reaction times and/or latencies of neurophysiological responses. Each statement comes in a pair of Agree/Disagree versions of critical words, which allows for experimental contrasting between belief and disbelief conditions. Psycholinguistic and psychoacoustic matching between Agree/Disagree versions of sentences, as well as across different categories of the CPICB items (Religious, Moral, Scientific, Everyday), enables rigorous control of low-level psycholinguistic and psychoacoustic features while testing higher-level beliefs. In the exploratory Study 1 (N = 20), we developed and tested a preliminary version of the CPICB that had 480 items. After selecting 400 items that yielded the most consistent responses, we carried out a confirmatory test-retest Study 2 (N = 40). Preregistered data analyses confirmed excellent construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the CPICB religious belief statements. We conclude that the CPICB is suitable for studying Christian beliefs in an experimental setting involving behavioural and neuroimaging paradigms, and provide Open Access to the inventory items, fostering further development of the experimental research of religiosity.

Indexed as

MoralsPsycholinguisticsHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAtheistBeliefChristianMoralN400Psycholinguistic inventoryReaction timesReligious cognitionScientific knowledge

Identifiers

PMID34244985

DOI10.3758/s13428-021-01632-3

PMCPMC8863718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.