RANGES Development and Initial Validation 1

The Reasons of Atheists and Agnostics for Nonbelief in ’s Existence Scale:

Development and Initial Validation

David F. Bradley, M.A.1, Julie J. Exline, Ph.D.1, Alex Uzdavines, M.A.1, Nick Stauner, Ph.D.1, Joshua B. Grubbs, Ph.D.2

1 Case Western Reserve University

2Bowling Green State University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David F. Bradley, Department of Psychological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7123. Phone: (440)-941-1475. FAX: (216) 368-4891. E-mail: [email protected]

Author Note: We gratefully acknowledge the support of the John Templeton Foundation (Grant # 36094 and #59916) in funding this project. Portions of this manuscript appear in a published M.A. thesis written by the first author.

© 2018, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/rel0000199 The Reasons of Atheists/Agnostics for Nonbelief in God’s Existence Scale: RANGES Development and Initial Validation 2

Development and Initial Validation

Research exploring nonbelievers’ reasons for not believing in the (s) has focused on theory development. Such efforts are valuable, but may not capture the lived experiences of nonbelievers. The current two studies quantitatively examined nonbelievers’ self-reported reasons for nonbelief through developing the Reasons of Atheists and Agnostics for Nonbelief in God’s Existence Scale (RANGES). We developed an initial pool of 64 items using prior published research, revised by a panel of experts including researchers and thought leaders in nonbelief communities. Both studies included participants from ’s Mechanical Turk (Study 1 & 2 Ns = 520 & 369), all of whom reported not believing in god(s). In Study 1, our exploratory factor analysis suggested nine factors across 35 items. In Study 2, we confirmed the nine-factor structure using 38 items (35 from Study 1 plus three new items for better coverage of factors with few items) with adequate fit. Across both studies, the RANGES subscales showed good reliability, convergent validity (e.g., positive correlations with previous lists of reasons for religious doubt), predictive validity (e.g., positive and negative feelings toward God and religion), and discriminant validity (e.g., subscales were not unexpectedly associated with other measures). Our one-year follow-up with a subset of Study 2 participants (N = 132) found different levels of stability among the RANGES subscales. This measure can promote further understanding the motivations, identities, and experiences of nonbelievers across cultures.

Belief in god is declining in America Nonbelief, , and (Kosmin & Keysar, 2009), with everything The term atheism usually refers to from individualism (e.g., Twenge, Exline, the belief that no god(s) exist, or that there is Grubbs, Sastry, & Campbell, 2015) to insufficient evidence to justify belief in apostasy (e.g., Streib & Klein, 2013) being god(s) (Nielsen, 2013). Agnosticism credited for rises in non-belief. Prior generally refers to the belief that it is not theorizing focused through psychoanalytic possible at this time to say whether or not a (e.g. Vitz, 1999) and evolutionary (e.g. god or exist, either because an Norenzayan & Gervais, 2013) lenses individual currently lacks evidence developed a framework for why some regarding the existence of such beings or people may not believe in a god or gods. because it is fundamentally impossible to However, empirical studies building on have said evidence (Poidevin, 2010). It is these frameworks remain sparse. The possible to integrate agnosticism with a present work seeks to answer this question religious or spiritual identity or set of by developing a nuanced measure of reasons beliefs, though holding agnostic beliefs atheists and agnostics give for nonbelief in a about the existence of god(s) still precludes god or gods. active belief in the existence of god(s). In RANGES Development and Initial Validation 3 this sense, atheism and agnosticism are not existence of god(s). It is important to note identical, but are both forms of nonbelief in that deconversion is distinct from the the existence of a god or gods. development and maintenance of nonbelief Not all people whose views suggest in the existence of god(s), as individuals can atheism or agnosticism self-identify with the deconvert to other religious traditions or label atheist or agnostic. One study using a leave organized religion while maintaining U.S. sample found that 2% are atheists and theistic beliefs. Additionally, individuals 10% are agnostics based on their stance on who never believed in the existence of the existence of God, but less than 1% god(s) cannot be said to be deconverts at all. labeled themselves atheists or agnostics Nonetheless, examining the deconversion (Kosmin & Keysar, 2009). Another study, literature may point to reasons for nonbelief using several indirect techniques, estimated relevant to at least some nonbelievers. A that 28% of people do not believe in the recent mixed-methods examination of existence of God, though far fewer would deconversion, building on previous admit nonbelief directly (Gervais & Najle, conceptual work, identified five 2017). Regardless of the exact prevalence of characteristics associated with deconversion: nonbelief in the population, it is clear that loss of religious experiences, intellectual holding nonbeliefs does not directly align doubts, moral , with self-labeling as a nonbeliever. Since experiences of emotional suffering, and our study focuses primarily on beliefs, we disaffiliation from religious communities defined our nonbeliever sample based on (Streib, Hood, Keller, Csöff, & Silver, beliefs rather than self-labels. 2009). Reasons for Nonbelief in the Existence of Recent studies (Bradley, Exline, & God(s) Uzdavines, 2016; Exline, Bradley, Norenzayan and Gervais (2013), Uzdavines, Grubbs, & Stauner, 2017) using a genetic and cultural focusing on nonbelievers’ explicitly stated framework, conceptualized four potential reasons for nonbelief in the existence of origins of nonbelief, each related to the god(s) grouped these nonbeliefs into six failure or relatively less activation of an broad categories: intellectual, emotional, evolved mechanism that would typically socialization, bad experiences with religion, foster belief in a god or gods. However, experiential, and intuitive. In these studies, because many of the evolutionary and participants rated the importance of these cultural factors identified often occur below categories of reasons in contributing to their the level of conscious awareness, it is nonbelief. Intellectual reasons were by far unclear whether nonbelievers would identify the most endorsed, but all categories of them as reasons for their nonbelief. reasons received some endorsement. We Studies of deconversion narratives, expand on these categories and provide a or the process of disaffiliation and exit from review of prior work pertinent to them a particular religious affiliation, point to below. several common themes that may also serve Intellectual. A belief is a stance on as potential reasons for nonbelief in the the truth or falsehood of an idea. One RANGES Development and Initial Validation 4 generally accepted way to determine an Rivera, 2009), it is reasonable to assume that idea’s verity or falsity is to apply intellectual relational reasons for nonbelief may remain reasoning to the idea. Indeed, the phrasing relevant for some nonbelievers. of the question – reasons for nonbelief – Early and current socialization. may suggest a preference for rational Popular beliefs often seem more credible argumentation based on logic, philosophy, or than unpopular or rare beliefs. In their study science rather than other potential reasons of atheists and believers, Hunsberger and for nonbelief. This is especially true if the Altemeyer (2006) found that atheists, person receiving the explanation is an compared to believers, experienced less outgroup member (Kenworthy & Miller, emphasis on religion during their 2002), as researchers might be perceived to upbringing. Another survey showed that be. In the case of nonbelief in a god or gods 27% of religious “nones” (individuals who specifically, arguments based on evidence or reported having no religious affiliation) had rationality are part of nonbeliever culture, at least one non-religious parent, a figure with many tomes devoted to scientific or much higher than the general population philosophical arguments against the (Kosmin et al., 2009). These findings cannot existence of a god or gods (e.g., Dawkins, clarify whether nonbelievers’ caregivers 1986; Dennett, 2006; Martin, 1990; G. H. actively pushed them toward nonbelief in Smith, 1979; Stenger, 2007, 2009). the existence of god(s) or simply did not Relational. Nonbelief in the push toward religious belief. However, data existence of fgod(s) may reflect attitudes from surveys of professional scientists about the character or actions of particular suggest that some professions contain (or hypothetical) gods. People often see concentrations of people with negative gods as relational figures with whom one views of religious beliefs (Ecklund & Park, can have human-like relationships (e.g., 2009), which may result in active Beck & McDonald, 2004; Granqvist & socialization pressure toward nonbelief. Kirkpatrick, 2013). In their study of reasons While the presence of socialization pressure for belief in God, Exline and colleagues may be a reason for nonbelief, such pressure (2017) found that relational reasons, such as often affects beliefs subconsciously (Asch, experiences of trust, security, or love 1956; Bond & Smith, 1996) and may be focused on God, were among the most rarely explicitly endorsed as a reason for highly endorsed reasons for belief. Bradley nonbelief. and colleagues (2016) found that some Anti-religion. Positive experiences atheists endorsed relational reasons for with religious people and institutions may nonbelief as well, including experiences of lend more credence to the existence of a god disappointment, anger, or mistrust focused or gods, and negative experiences may lead on a God once believed to exist, or to nonbelief in the existence of god(s). conceiving of God as cruel or punishing. Victims of clergy sex abuse, for example, Since many nonbelievers at one time report lower levels of belief in God believed in the existence of a god or gods (Rossetti, 1995). The effect of perceived (Kosmin, Keysar, Cragun, & Navarro- victimization at the hands of religion may RANGES Development and Initial Validation 5 extend to the societal level as well. Some (separate from feelings about god(s) as nonbelievers spend considerable time and relational figures). energy combating what they perceive to be Agnostic. Agnostic nonbelief the negative influence of religious teachings involves abstaining from both belief and on society (e.g., Christina, 2012; Hitchens, active disbelief in the existence of a god or 2007). gods. Agnostic nonbelief may be seen as a Intuitive. People can make sort of epistemic humility concerning the decisions, including evaluations of truth existence of a proposed god or set of gods. claims, based on preconscious factors that Alternatively, agnostic nonbelief can be a cannot be easily articulated. These statement about the strength of arguments preconscious factors are sometimes called for and against the existence of a god or intuition (e.g., Dane & Pratt, 2007). People gods, namely that neither is persuasive at may make objectively rational decisions this moment, and as a result belief is not before they are able to explain their warranted. decisions in rational terms (e.g., Bechara, Existential. According to Yalom Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1997). (1980), humans have four basic concerns However, these intuitive processes do not that arise as a matter of human existence: to always lead to objectively rational decisions find meaning, to feel connected to others or judgments. Regardless of their veracity, and the universe, to face the specter of an intuitions can be powerful and hard to unavoidable , and to face one’s override with deliberate cognitive processes essential responsibility for one’s actions. (for a review, see Kahneman, 2011). Indeed, Belief in the existence of a god or gods may people often superimpose rational be appealing in part because it addresses explanations for conclusions reached via these concerns. Those who have other ways intuition rather than give up their intuitions of resolving these concerns, find religious (e.g., Cushman, Young, & Hauser, 2006). approaches to these concerns inadequate, Emotional. Positive and negative choose to not resolve these existential emotions can influence conscious thoughts concerns, or do not feel the weight of these (Frijda, Manstead, & Bem, 2000). concerns may be less likely to believe. Arguments using the peripheral pathway The Present Studies aim to change emotional-attitudinal As described above, individuals may positions on a given topic. Peripheral endorse many reasons for nonbelief in arguments can, at times, be more effective god(s) (Exline et al., 2017). Developing a than arguments using the central pathway, measure that asks nonbelievers to respond to which use high-quality facts or rational a range of different reasons for nonbelief arguments to alter beliefs (Hovland, Janis, & may allow for the assessment of nuanced Kelley, 1953; Petty & Cacioppo, 1984). For reasons for nonbelief previously available this reason, it is important to consider the only through in-depth qualitative interviews possibility that nonbelief in a god or gods (see Streib et al., 2009). This measure may could reflect general positive affect about help describe intragroup variation among nonbelief or negative affect about belief nonbelievers and clarify the previously RANGES Development and Initial Validation 6 identified reasons for nonbelief. In doing so, Study 1: Measure Development and the measure may help further the public Initial Evaluation understanding of nonbelievers and their Method reasons for nonbelief in the existence of Participants and procedure. We god(s). This measure may also inform recruited 520 U.S. adults (267 female, 238 theories as to what causes individuals to male, 15 transgender or “other”; Mage = become nonbelievers and, more broadly, 32.39, SDage = 11.71) to provide survey what prevents individuals from simply responses through Amazon’s Mechanical adopting the dominant beliefs in their Turk (MTurk) system and paid them $2.00 culture (i.e., in this U.S. sample, theistic and after survey completion. MTurk allows especially Christian beliefs). Additionally, researchers to quickly and inexpensively this measure may serve as one way of collect high-quality data with more measuring and understanding cross-cultural demographic diversity than other Internet differences in how nonbelievers sampling methods (Buhrmester, Kwang, & conceptualize belief, nonbelief, and the role Gosling, 2011). MTurk samples provide of religion and religious people in their results that are psychometrically similar to society. samples recruited in other ways (e.g., Mason Our aim for the present project was & Suri, 2012; Paolacci, Chandler, & to develop and psychometrically evaluate Ipeirotis, 2010). the Reasons of Atheists/Agnostics for Measures. Measures are listed Nonbelief in God’s Existence Scale below in the order in which they appeared in (RANGES). We developed items based on the survey. Table 1 reports demographics. prior literature, previous unpublished Table 2 reports descriptive statistics. research by the authors, and feedback from Belief in God’s existence. As in a academic and non-academic experts in prior study (Exline, Park, Smyth, & Carey, atheism. In Study 1, we used exploratory 2011, Study 5), participants completed a factor analysis to examine factor structure forced-choice item adapted from the General and inform item reduction efforts. In Study Social Survey: 1) I know that no god or gods 2, we used confirmatory factor analysis with exist, and I have no doubts about it. 2) new data to fit a model informed by the EFA While it is possible that a god or gods exist, results from Study 1. I do not believe in the existence of a god or Both studies included tests of reliability and gods. 3) I don’t know whether there is a god validity. We anticipated low cross-factor or gods, and I don’t believe there is any way loadings (i.e., cross-loadings < .30) and to find out. 4) I don't know whether there is strong internal reliability (i.e., α > .70) for a god or gods, but it may be possible to find all final subscales. We also examined out. 5) I find myself believing in a god or stability over one year in a subset of Study 2 gods at some of the time, but not at others. participants. Both studies included several 6) While I have doubts, I feel that I do tests of convergent, discriminant, and believe in a god or gods. 7) I know that a predictive validity. god or gods really exist, and I have no doubts about it. RANGES Development and Initial Validation 7

Options 1 and 2 suggest atheist Past beliefs about and attitudes beliefs, and 3 and 4 suggest agnostic beliefs. toward God. Participants were asked Participants who chose options 5, 6, or 7 whether they believed in a god or gods in were excluded from the rest of the survey the past. Those participants who indicated and analyses. past belief were asked how long they had Religious/nonreligious identity. not believed in god(s). As in previous Participants responded to, “How would you studies (Bradley et al., 2016; Exline, Park, describe your present religious/spiritual Smyth, & Carey, 2011), we also asked tradition, if any?” via a text box. participants, “Looking back over your entire Desire for a god or gods to exist. life, how often have you had positive Participants used a slider bar to respond to, feelings toward God?” They responded on a “Regardless of how much you actually scale from 0 (never) to 10 (always). They believe in the existence of a god or gods: then completed similar items focused on How much do you WANT a god or gods to religion and God, including past anger exist?” The slider ranged from 0 (I do not toward God, past feelings that God is angry want a god or gods to exist) to 100 (I want a at you, past positive and negative feelings god or gods to exist). toward religion, and past negative Reasons of Atheists/Agnostics for experiences with religious people. Nonbelief in God’s Existence Scale Religious and spiritual struggles. (RANGES). Participants responded to 64 Participants completed the 26-item items after receiving the following prompt: Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale (RSS; Exline, Pargament, Grubbs, & Yali, People can have many reasons for 2014). They rated the extent to which they not believing in the existence of a had experienced each type of struggle over god or gods. Below is a list of the past few months, using a scale from 1 potential reasons. Some of the (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). The RSS reasons listed below use the word includes six subscales: Divine, Demonic, “God.” Please interpret “God” to Interpersonal, Moral, Ultimate Meaning, and stand for whatever image or idea you Doubt. We scored participants’ responses by primarily associate with that term, averaging across the individual item such as a specific god you used to responses within each subscale. believe exists or a specific god that Complexity of approach to religion other people believe exists. and spirituality. Participants completed the 8-item Complexity subscale of the On a scale from 1 (not at all Multidimensional Quest Orientation Scale important) to 5 (extremely (Beck & Jessup, 2004). Participants rated important), how important is each of their agreement from 1 (strongly disagree) the following items in explaining to 7 (agree strongly). Scores were summed. why you currently do not believe in Broad reasons for nonbelief. As in the existence of God? previous studies (Bradley et al., 2016; Exline et al., 2017), participants read: RANGES Development and Initial Validation 8

“People have many reasons for believing then examining factor loadings and that God does not (or might not) exist. Do interpretability of factors. VSS suggested 7 you see your doubts, or your decision to not (BIC = -6364), 8 (BIC = -6375), or 9 (BIC = believe in God, as being based on these -6368) factors would best fit the data. types of reasons?” Participants responded on However, many items showed poor loadings a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely) to (< .50) and significant cross-loadings (≥ .30) eight potential reasons for nonbelief or in 7-, 8-, and 9-factor structures. doubt in God’s existence: intellectual, We then removed items that loaded positive emotional, negative emotional, god poorly or were redundant with better- relational, socialization, bad experiences loading items and conducted a second VSS with religion, and intuitive. Each reason was using the 35 remaining items. VSS results presented as a single item, along with suggested an 8- (BIC = -1416) or 9-factor examples (for example, “Intellectual - seeing (BIC = -1421) solution would be adequate. belief in a god or gods as illogical, not After examining the results of the 8- and 9- rational; religious teachings or beliefs about factor structures, we determined the 9-factor gods seem inconsistent or confusing”). structure provided better factor loadings and Sources of religious doubt. more interpretable factors. We labeled the Participants read: “Please rate the extent to nine factors as follows: Intellectual, which each issue listed below has caused Relational, Intuitive, Emotional, Agnostic, you to have religious questions or doubts.” Early Socialization, Current Socialization, They then read 20 potential causes of doubt Bad Experiences with Religion, and Societal or questions (from Altemeyer & Hunsberger, Concerns. This structure differed from our 1997) and indicated the level of doubt or expectations in three ways. First, we had questions caused by each item on a scale expected the Early Socialization and Current from 0 (this issue has not caused any doubts Socialization subscales to form a single or questions for me) to 6 (this issue has factor. Second, we expected the Bad caused extreme doubts or questions for me). Experiences with Religion and Societal Item responses are interpreted Concerns subscales to also form a single independently. factor. Third, the expected existentialism Results factor did not emerge. Table 3 shows Exploratory factor analysis. We eigenvalues, percent of variance explained, analyzed responses to 64 items comprising and the pattern matrix with items and factor the initial version of the RANGES using loadings for the final nine-factor solution. exploratory factor analysis with maximum RANGES descriptive statistics. likelihood extraction and, since factors were Table 5 reports means, standard deviations, expected to correlate, direct oblimin rotation and reliability for the RANGES subscales. (Costello & Osborn, 2005). We determined We found significant differences in mean factor structure by first conducting a Very scores of the subscales using repeated- Simple Structure (VSS; Revelle & Rocklin, measures ANOVA, F(8, 4152) = 295.75, p < 1979) analysis to inform our decision .001. Holm-corrected tests of main effects regarding the appropriate number of factors, showed that intellectual reasons for RANGES Development and Initial Validation 9 nonbelief in the existence of god(s) were the Hunsberger (1997). Some sources of doubt most strongly endorsed, and the least were predicted by a single subscale. Other endorsed reasons were emotional, early times, more than one subscale accounted for socialization, and current socialization, all unique variance in predicting the source of three of which did not significantly differ. doubt, in a way consistent with subscale Correlations between the subscales appear content. (For example, “intolerance by above the diagonal in Table 6. All subscales religious people to some groups” related to correlated positively with each other, except both the Bad Experiences with Religion and the Intellectual and Current Socialization Societal Concerns subscales.) Of note, the subscales, which did not show a statistically Current Socialization subscale did not relate significant correlation. positively to any of the sources of doubt, Convergent and discriminant and it showed a negative association with validity. We used multiple regression to several sources of doubt. predict other measures of nonbelief in the Predictive validity. We conducted existence of god(s) using the nine RANGES multiple regressions predicting current and subscales (Table 7). We expected the past experiences with (and attitudes toward) RANGES subscales to account for unique aspects of belief and nonbelief in the variance in the variables most conceptually existence of god(s) (Table 8). In general, the relevant to the respective subscales and not RANGES subscales were associated with account for unique variance in other appropriate constructs. Lifetime negative variables. There were no issues with experiences with religious people (an item multicollinearity (i.e., no VIFs greater than measuring personal experiences) was 5; highest VIF was 2.44). Due to risk of positively associated with the Bad inflated Type I error from multiple Experiences with Religion subscale, while comparisons, we adjusted all significance lifetime negative feelings about religion (an levels from beta weights and R2 from item assessing more general attitudes) was validity testing regressions in Study 1 using associated with the Societal Concerns the Holm correction method. subscale. The Intellectual subscale was In general, the RANGES subscales associated with greater certainty of showed expected associations with the nonbelief. The Relational subscale was broad, one-item reasons for nonbelief. The associated with more lifetime anger toward Current Socialization subscale was not god(s), more experiences of believing god(s) significantly associated with any of the were angry at them, and more divine broad reasons for nonbelief; the text of the struggles. As expected, the Agnostic broad socialization reason for nonbelief item subscale was predictive of both having emphasized early socialization experiences agnostic beliefs and labeling oneself as and was associated with the Early agnostic. Of note, the Current Socialization, Socialization subscale. Emotional, and Intuitive subscales were not The RANGES subscales also significantly associated with any of the performed well predicting sources of predictive validity indicators. religious doubt developed by Altemeyer and RANGES Development and Initial Validation 10

Several findings shed light on the year follow-up and were paid an additional nature of different kinds of nonbelief. For $3.00 for their participation. example, the Agnostic subscale was Measures. We used the same associated with more positive past feelings measures used in Study 1 for the following toward a god or gods. While not providing constructs: demographics, belief in God’s evidence about the subscale’s validity, this existence, religious/nonreligious identity, finding is informative. The positive desire for a god or gods to exist, past beliefs association between the Agnostic subscale and attitudes toward God, religious and and self-identification as agnostic, holding spiritual struggles, complexity of approach agnostic beliefs, and religious quest to religion and spirituality, broad reasons for complexity supported the subscale’s validity nonbelief in the existence of god(s), and of the subscale. sources of religious doubt. Before Study 2: Factor Confirmation and conducting Study 2, we added three items Further Psychometric Evaluation aiming to improve the coverage of two of Method the subscales (Early Socialization and Bad Participants and procedure. Experiences with Religion), leading to a 38- Participants were 295 U.S. adults (148 item version of the RANGES. The Study 2 female, 147 male; Mage = 32.73, SDage = follow-up group completed only the 11.22) recruited from MTurk and paid $3.00 RANGES. for their participation. None of the Results participants in Study 1 participated in Study Confirmatory factor analysis. 2. To reflect differences in conceptions of Responses to the 38-item RANGES measure nonbelief in the existence of god(s), we were analyzed using confirmatory factor defined nonbelief as the absence of belief in analysis (CFA). We conducted the CFA Study 2, whereas we used a forced-choice using the R software package lavaan description of beliefs in Study 1. All (Rosseel, 2012). We did not allow errors to participants indicated that they did not correlate. Because the RANGES uses a believe in the existence of God by Likert-type scale, we treated the data as responding 0 on a scale from 0 (Not at all) ordinal and used the mean- and variance- to 10 (Totally) to the question, “To what adjusted weighted least square estimator extent do you believe that God exists?” As a (WLSMV), which calculates a scaled chi- result, compared to Study 1, Study 2 had square test statistic, to evaluate goodness of significantly fewer participants with model fit. Common criteria for adequate agnostic beliefs (48.7% vs. 9.5%) or who model fit are CFI > .95, RMSEA < .06, and self-labeled as agnostic (44.8% vs. 22.7%). SRMR < .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). By these No other demographic differences were standards, the nine-factor model of the observed. RANGES demonstrated adequate fit (scaled Study 2 participants were contacted χ2[629] = 1161.17, p < .001; CFI = .966; one year later and invited to complete a RMSEA = .055, 90% CI [.050, .060]; follow-up survey. Of the 295 original SRMR = .083). Items loaded strongly onto participants, 133 (45%) completed the one- their assigned factors (i.e., all standardized RANGES Development and Initial Validation 11 loadings > .70; see Table 4 for factor with Religion subscale and sources of doubt loadings), and the factors showed good were not present. In each case the doubt reliability (i.e., all αs > .80). item was predicted by another subscale in a RANGES descriptive statistics. way that made theoretical sense. Table 5 reports means, standard deviations, Predictive validity. As in Study 1, and reliability for the RANGES subscales. we used multiple regression to predict We found significant differences in mean current and past experiences with (and scores of the subscales using repeated- attitudes toward) aspects of belief and measures ANOVA, F(8, 2352) = 260.54, p < nonbelief (Table 8). In general, the .001. Holm-corrected test of main effects RANGES subscales were associated with revealed that intellectual reasons for appropriate constructs. The Intellectual nonbelief were the most strongly endorsed, subscale was associated with certainty of and the least endorsed reasons were early nonbelief. The Bad Experiences with socialization and current socialization, Religion subscale was associated with which did not significantly differ. reporting more negative experiences with Correlations appear below the diagonal in religious people throughout one’s life. The Table 6. In general, subscale scores Agnostic subscale was associated with correlated positively and significantly with likelihood of holding agnostic beliefs and each other. However, the Agnostic and Early self-identifying as agnostic. The Relational Socialization subscales generally did not subscale was associated with experiencing correlate strongly with the other subscales. more anger toward, and perceiving more Convergent and discriminant anger from, a god or gods. The Societal validity. As in Study 1, we used multiple Concerns subscale was associated with regression to predict other measures of greater lifetime history of negative feelings reasons for nonbelief using the nine toward religion. No statistically significant RANGES subscales (Table 7), using the relationships were found involving the Holm method to adjust for multiple Current Socialization, Early Socialization, comparisons. There were no issues with Emotional, or Intuitive subscales. multicollinearity (highest VIF was 1.91). Temporal stability. Using responses The RANGES subscales related to the from the 133 participants in the one-year appropriate broad, one-item reasons for follow-up, we calculated the intraclass nonbelief in the existence of god(s), except correlation (ICC) for each subscale (Table the Current Socialization subscale, which 5). The RANGES subscales showed modest was not associated with the single to moderate stability after one year (ICCs socialization item. ranging from .52 to .72). The highest ICCs The RANGES subscales performed were observed in the Early Socialization and well predicting responses to Altemeyer and Relational subscales, both of which reflect Hunsberger’s (1997) list of sources of prior experiences unlikely to change within religious doubts. The pattern of associations a year. Meanwhile, the lowest ICCs were followed that of Study 1, except that several found for the Intuitive and Emotional relationships between the Bad Experiences RANGES Development and Initial Validation 12 subscales, which may be more state- Study 1 and Study 2 led to fewer agnostics dependent. in Study 2, but no other demographic Discussion differences. The goodness of model fit and This project involved the creation consistency in validity results across the two and preliminary validation of a multi-item samples suggest, though do not prove, the measure to assess the self-reported RANGES applies validly to different forms importance of reasons for nonbelief in the of nonbelief.The RANGES subscales existence of a god or gods. While previous showed modest to moderate levels of research has suggested that atheists and stability at one-year follow-up. This level of agnostics have a variety of reasons for their stability is not unusual, and is consistent nonbelief (e.g., Altemeyer & Hunsberger, with levels of stability found in other 1997; Exline et al., 2017; Norenzayan & constructs, such as personality traits Gervais, 2013), the RANGES provides a captured by the Big Five Inventory (as low valid multidimensional measure of a broad as .70 at three-year follow-up; Hampson & range of reasons for nonbelief held and Goldberg, 2006) and Personality acknowledged by atheists and agnostics. Psychopathology Five Scale (as low as .44 Whereas an open-ended question about at six-month follow-up; Trull, Useda, Costa, reasons for nonbelief likely draws the most & McCrae, 1995). A certain level of important reasons for nonbelief (often temporal instability is therefore expected, intellectual reasons), the RANGES, as a likely due to a combination of measurement multi-item measure, encourages atheists and error, inconsistent responding, and true agnostics to communicate to researchers change over time. Specifically related to their nuanced reasons for nonbelief. reasons for nonbelief in the existence of Additionally, we argue that the RANGES god(s), some nonbelievers may experience also facilitates quantitative comparisons and an interchange between intuitive and other correlations between reasons, individuals, reasons, with intuitive reasons rising when and external factors, such as potential causes the question of gods’ existence is considered and consequences of nonbelief in the settled and, for example, intellectual reasons existence of god(s). Our research is unique rising when more actively engaging with the in that it used two independent samples from question. Nonbelievers may have further Amazon’s Mechanical Turk worker pool, interactions with believers, with further and our studies were not advertised as positive or negative experiences altering studies about nonbelievers, whereas other scores on subscales such as Societal studies have either 1) relied on theoretical Concerns and Bad Experiences with speculation, or 2) relied upon snowball Religion. Further research is necessary to sampling methods drawn primarily from track longitudinal changes in reasons for people active in organized atheist groups. nonbelief as they relate to the development Across two studies, our results of nonbeliever identity. suggested that the RANGES is a reliable, valid instrument with nine discrete As expected, intellectual reasons subscales. Differences in inclusion criteria in were the most strongly endorsed type of RANGES Development and Initial Validation 13 reason for nonbelief in the existence of simply an intellectual challenge to the god(s). However, it is worth noting that the existence of a god or gods. This is consistent Intuitive, Agnostic, and Societal Concerns with prior research, which found that the subscales were also strongly endorsed in presence of suffering in an individual’s both samples, significantly higher than personal life related to more anger toward reasons focused on negative personal God (e.g., Exline et al., 2011; Hale-Smith, experiences (i.e., the Relational and Bad Park, & Edmonson, 2012). We also found Experiences with Religion subscales). This that religious doubts caused by hearing suggests that nonbelievers perceive their threats about an unpleasant afterlife (e.g., nonbelief as an intellectual decision, but ) related to more societal concerns they also perceive their nonbelief as a reasons for nonbelief, suggesting that some decision made in consideration of intuitive nonbelievers see threats of Hell as causing processes, the limits of knowledge, and the problems for society rather than personal best interest of society, with personal discomfort or making a god seem like an experiences of pain and disappointment unfavorable relational partner. relatively less important. At the same time, it Some differences between results in is likely that all nine types of reasons for the two studies arose pertaining to the nonbelief are important in understanding the Agnosticism subscale: Study 1, which had a population of nonbelievers. greater proportion of agnostics than Study 2, Several of the sources of religious showed several statistically significant doubt were associated with unexpected relationships with the Agnostic subscale not RANGES subscales, which might shed some present in Study 2. However, in both studies light on how atheists and agnostics think we found significant associations between about different issues. For example, doubt the Agnostic reasons subscale and both self- caused by the intolerance some religious labelling as agnostic and endorsing agnostic people show to some groups was associated beliefs about the existence of a god or gods. with societal concerns and bad experiences One unexpected finding was that in with religion, suggesting some people may both studies there was a negative become or maintain their identity as atheists relationship between intellectual reasons and or agnostics due to the intolerance they a desire for a god or gods to exist (in other experience from religious people. Similarly, words, a positive relationship between some atheists and agnostics experience intellectual reasons and wanting a god or religious doubt due to the presence of gods to not exist). Perhaps those with unnecessary suffering in the world (i.e., the stronger intellectual reasons feel they have problem of evil), which was associated most more to lose, in terms of their understanding strongly with the Relational subscale, not of science and their general way of the Intellectual subscale. This finding raises understanding the world. Alternatively, the possibility that for some nonbelievers, perhaps people who more strongly value the problem of suffering affects the holding true beliefs in general tend to desirability and perceived worthiness of investigate matters more intellectually, god(s) as relational partners, and is not hoping to increase their odds of being RANGES Development and Initial Validation 14 correct. A third possibility is that those who sampling techniques common in nonbelief have engaged in an intellectual examination research, such as recruitment from active of the existence of gods find the existence of members of nonbelief groups or advertising loving gods to be incompatible with the through announcements on blogs focused on level of suffering in the world. They nonbelief. However, the sample was by conclude that if gods exist, these gods would necessity limited to individuals with Internet not be loving gods, and therefore these access and a willingness to complete a nonbelievers would not want such gods to survey for less than the current U.S. exist. minimum wage rate. Also, the sample was Limitations and Future Directions confined to individuals in the U.S.; future Our aim was to capture nonbelievers’ research should explore whether the own sense of their reasons for nonbelief in constructs measured in the RANGES are the existence of god(s), and for that reason applicable in other cultures. For example, in we developed a self-report measure. Western Europe, nonbelief in the existence However, self-report measures have well- of god(s) is more common than in the known limitations (Chan, 2009). Response United States, which may lead to higher biases cannot be ruled out, and participants endorsement of socialization reasons for may be reluctant to report non-intellectual nonbelief (WIN-Gallup International, 2012). reasons for nonbelief. This measure is only It is also unknown how well the RANGES capable of detecting those reasons that would apply to cultures where is respondents are aware of, and should not be a common belief structure. Specifically, the used to definitively answer the “real” reason use of the term “God” in the RANGES’ nonbelievers hold their positions. For items may pose difficulties in cross-cultural example, nonbelievers might build work. The instructions to the measure do ask intellectual reasons on top of intuitive and respondents to personalize their emotional reasons, while only being aware understanding of the term “God”; however, of the intellectual reasons, not the more alterations of the term to “god and/or gods” foundational, potentially causal reasons. may be more culturally valid. Further testing Some nonbelievers may be unable or of measurement invariance in non-U.S. unwilling to acknowledge social influences groups is a necessary part of testing the for nonbelief, as this might threaten the validity of this measure for use in other individual’s sense of autonomy. Finally, the cultures. RANGES items related to past relationships The RANGES and its subscales have with god(s) may seem contradictory and many potential uses. Longitudinal work hard to endorse for some, even if bad could track the ways that nonbelief in the relationships with imagined god(s) did existence of god(s) unfolds over time, with actually lead to nonbelief. one of the changes over time being Regarding sampling, Amazon’s responses to the RANGES. For example, Mechanical Turk likely provided a sample perhaps emotional and relational reasons for more representative of the atheist and nonbelief arise first, but either the awareness agnostic population compared to many or the current importance of these reasons RANGES Development and Initial Validation 15 for nonbelief fades over time. If the RANGES is shown to be a valid instrument in non-U.S. settings, differences among nonbelievers in different cultural contexts could be examined using the RANGES subscales. Finally, understanding that nonbelief in the existence of god(s) is a complex construct for many nonbelievers may help others reject false stereotypes of nonbelievers and promote a deeper understanding of these populations. RANGES Development and Initial Validation 16 RANGES Development and Initial Validation 17

References Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1997). Amazing conversions: Why some turn to faith & others abandon religion. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093718 Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 1293–1295. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 Beck, R., & Jessup, R. K. (2004). The mutidimensional nature of quest motivation. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 283–294. Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 92–103. Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111 Bradley, D. F., Exline, J. J., & Uzdavines, A. (2016). Relational reasons for nonbelief in the existence of gods: An important adjunct to intellectual nonbelief. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000073 Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309-336). New York, NY: Routledge. Christina, G. (2012). Why are you atheists so angry? 99 things that piss off the godless. Charlottesville, VA: Pitchstone Publishing. Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17, 1082–1089. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32, 33–54. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.23463682 Dawkins, R. (1986). : Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York, NY: Norton & Company. Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. New York, NY: Viking Penguin. Ecklund, E. H., & Park, J. Z. (2009). Conflict between religion and science among academic scientists? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 276–292. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01447.x RANGES Development and Initial Validation 18

Exline, J. J., Bradley, D. F., Uzdavines, A., Grubbs, J. B., & Stauner, N. (2017). Reasons for belief and nonbelief in God. Manuscript in preparation. Exline, J. J., Pargament, K. I., Grubbs, J. B., & Yali, A. M. (2014). The Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale: Development and initial validation. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6, 208-222. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0036465 Exline, J. J., Park, C. L., Smyth, J. M., & Carey, M. P. (2011). Anger toward God: Social- cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 129-148. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021716 Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272– 299. http://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.4.3.272 Frijda, N. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Bem, S. (Eds.). (2000). Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Gervais, W. M., & Najle, M. B. (2017). How many atheists are there? Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advanced online publication. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617707015 Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2013). Religion, spirituality, and attachment. In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14045-007 Hale-Smith, A., Park, C. L., & Edmondson, D. (2012). Measuring religious beliefs about suffering: Development of the Views of Suffering Scale. Psychological Assessment, 24, 855-866. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0027399 Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 763-779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.763 Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. New York, NY: Twelve Books. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Hunsberger, B. E., & Altemeyer, B. (2006). Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. http://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116 RANGES Development and Initial Validation 19

Keenan, W. J. F., & Schnell, T. (2011). Meaning-making in an atheist world. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 33, 55–78. http://doi.org/10.1163/157361211X564611 Kenworthy, J. B., & Miller, N. (2002). Attributional biases about the origins of attitudes: Externality, emotionality and rationality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 693–707. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.5.693 Kosmin, B. A., & Keysar, A. (2009). American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2008) summary report. Hartford, CT. Kosmin, B. A., Keysar, A., Cragun, R., & Navarro-Rivera, J. (2009). American nones: The profile of the no religion population: A report based on the American Religious Identification Survey 2008. Hartford, CT. Martin, M. (1990). Atheism: A philosophical justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 Nielsen, K. E. (2013). atheism. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/topic/40634/atheism Norenzayan, A., & Gervais, W. M. (2013). The origins of religious disbelief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 20–25. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.006 Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.1.69 Poidevin, R. Le. (2010). Agnosticism: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Revelle, W., & Rocklin, T. (1979). Very Simple Structure: An alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number of interpretable factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 403–414. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1404_2 Rosseel, Y (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/ Rossetti, S. J. (1995). The impact of child sexual abuse on attitudes toward God and the . & Neglect, 19, 1469–1481. http://doi.org/10.1016/0145- 2134(95)00100-1 Smith, G. H. (1979). Atheism: The case against God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Stenger, V. J. (2007). God: The failed hypothesis: How science shows that God does not exist. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Stenger, V. J. (2009). The : Taking a stand for science and reason. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Streib, H., Hood, Jr., R. W., Keller, B., Csöff, R-M, & Silver, C. (1999). Deconversion: Qualitative and quantitative results from cross-cultural research in Germany and the United States of America. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. RANGES Development and Initial Validation 20

Streib, H., & Klein, C. (2013). Atheists, agnostics, and apostates. In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research. (pp. 713–728). Washington: American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/14045-040 Trull, T. J., Useda, J. D., Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Comparison of the MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and the NEO-PI—R. Psychological Assessment, 7, 508-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.508 Twenge, J. M., Exline, J. J., Grubbs, J. B., Sastry, R., & Campbell, W. K. (2015). Generational and time period differences in American adolescents’ religious orientation, 1966-2014. PloS One, 10(5), e0121454. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121454 Vitz, P. C. (1999). Faith of the fatherless: The psychology of atheism. Dallas, TX: Spence. WIN - Gallup International. (2012). Global index of religiosity and atheism. Zurich, Switzerland. Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books. RANGES Development and Validation 21

Table 1 Sample Demographics Variable Study 1 Study 2

n % n % Gender Female 267 51.3 148 50.2 Male 238 45.8 147 49.8 Transgender/Other 15 2.9 0 0

Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 412 79.2 249 84.4 Homosexual 25 4.7 11 3.7 Bisexual 51 9.6 24 8.1 Other 32 6.2 11 3.7

Race/Ethnicity African-American/Black 26 4.9 15 5.1 American Indian/Native American/ 18 3.4 10 3.4 Alaska Native Asian Indian 12 2.3 0 0 East Asian/Pacific Islander 24 4.5 15 5.1 Middle Eastern 2 0.4 2 0.7 Latino/Hispanic 39 7.4 16 5.4 White/Caucasian/European 445 84.1 255 86.4 American

Marital Status Single, not in a committed 181 34.9 101 34.4 relationship Single, in a committed relationship 109 21.0 60 20.2 Living with partner 79 15.3 61 20.6 Married or civil union 123 23.7 74 25.2 Divorced 14 2.7 22 7.3 Separated 8 1.5 3 1.1 Widowed 1 0.2 0 0

Education High school graduate or less 71 13.7 37 12.6 Some college/technical school 180 34.7 99 33.7 Completed two-year/technical 57 11.0 15 5.1 degree Completed four-year degree 120 23.2 103 35.0 Attended/completed 90 17.4 40 13.6 graduate/professional school RANGES Development and Validation 22

Table 2 Study 1 Study 2 Variable M SD α M SD α Reasons for Nonbelief 79.46 26.15 --- 85.83 24.87 - Intellectual

23.93 29.00 --- 21.85 31.34 - Emotional (negative)

24.80 30.08 --- 25.00 31.88 - Emotional (positive)

26.42 29.58 --- 20.46 27.99 - Socialization

42.54 36.06 --- 42.67 38.56 - Bad experiences with religion

53.74 32.69 --- 53.55 38.49 - Intuitive

35.23 34.43 --- 36.29 37.54 - Relational

Altemeyer Sources of Doubt

4.36 2.20 --- 4.73 2.43 - The problem of evil

4.93 2.06 --- 5.21 2.27 - Negative history of religion

5.18 2.00 --- 5.34 2.19 - Hypocrisy of religious people

2.09 1.81 --- 2.48 2.16 - The death of a loved one

4.71 2.24 --- 4.91 2.36 - Religious teachings about the role of women

4.26 2.30 --- 4.03 2.52 - Being religious did not bring peace, RANGES Development and Validation 23

joy

5.49 2.03 --- 5.33 2.25 - Intolerance by religious people to some groups

4.62 2.21 --- 4.76 2.44 - Threats about hell

Religion prohibits pleasure 4.43 2.20 --- 4.61 2.34 - 5.71 1.71 --- 5.68 2.04 - Religious tenets don’t make sense

5.39 1.97 --- 5.31 2.24 - Religious faith prevents questioning

5.12 2.05 --- 5.37 2.20 - Claims that the is the word of God

Lifetime history with religion and spirituality 3.60 2.68 --- 3.13 2.77 - Had positive emotion at a god or gods

Felt angry at a god or gods 2.95 2.94 --- 2.54 3.01 - 3.51 2.46 --- 3.15 2.69 - Had positive feelings at religion

6.24 2.74 --- 6.02 3.13 - Had neg. feelings at religion

4.41 3.33 --- 3.85 3.31 - Had negative experiences with religious people

1.54 2.43 --- 1.50 2.62 - Believed a god or gods felt angry at you

Past and current nonbelief

34.48 32.70 --- 35.47 35.78 - Desire for God to exist RANGES Development and Validation 24

57.32 34.77 --- 82.21 26.00 - Certainty of nonbelief

253 48.7% --- 28 9.5% - Agnostic beliefs (n, %)

233 44.8% --- 67 22.7% - Identification as agnostic (n, %)

30.88 8.17 .66 30.85 9.92 .75 Religious quest complexity

Religious and Spiritual Struggles

1.29 0.69 .92 1.12 0.49 .92 Divine

1.85 0.87 .85 1.76 0.84 .82 Interpersonal

Variable Descriptive Statistics RANGES Development and Validation 25

Table 3 Exploratory Factor Analysis Loadings for Retained RANGES Items, Study 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Abbreviated Items

Belief in God would make me an outcast. .87 .02 .04 .01 .05 -.01 .01 -.03 -.03

Belief in God is not accepted in my group. .87 .00 .00 .02 -.02 .02 -.03 -.02 -.01

It is easier for me to fit in as a nonbeliever. .78 -.04 .06 .01 -.03 .01 .05 .02 -.03

Others would look down on me if I believed in .77 .00 -.04 .01 -.05 .11 .07 .02 .06 God.

Scientific reasons for not believing in God. -.04 .76 .06 -.02 .03 .07 .04 .06 -.03

God’s existence doesn’t make logical sense. -.06 .73 -.05 .02 .01 .05 .02 .00 -.15

No scientific evidence for the existence of God. .02 .67 -.03 .07 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.04 -.05

The natural world makes more sense without God. -.04 .66 .01 -.07 .05 .08 .10 -.02 -.06

The idea of God is full of contradictions. .00 .59 .06 .14 -.09 -.07 -.07 -.14 -.05

The events of history are inconsistent with the .09 .55 .02 -.02 -.04 -.05 -.03 -.07 -.01 existence of God.

I have been hurt by religious people in the past. .06 .06 .84 .00 .02 .07 .03 .08 -.02

Religious people have made my life worse. .06 .06 .63 -.05 -.09 -.03 .08 -.21 .00

I have been let down by religious institutions. .01 -.06 .53 .07 -.19 .01 .06 -.15 .01

No one knows for sure whether God exists. .03 .02 .00 .78 -.04 -.03 -.01 -.05 -.08

It would be arrogant to claim that I know for sure whether God exists. .05 -.03 .05 .59 .08 .11 .06 -.08 .09 RANGES Development and Validation 26

God’s existence or non-existence can’t be proven. -.03 .27 -.08 .58 -.08 -.03 .08 .01 .07

I’m not sure whether or not God exists. .03 -.12 .04 .55 -.06 .03 -.04 .07 -.11

If God does exist, God has caused me to suffer. -.02 .01 -.07 -.06 -.85 .09 .03 -.06 .00

If God does exist, God should have eased my .04 .09 .03 .07 -.77 -.06 -.02 -.02 .02 suffering.

Earlier in my life, I felt mistreated by God. .16 .00 .11 -.04 -.61 .06 .07 .08 .02

In the past, I felt as though God disappointed me. -.04 -.10 .11 .08 -.56 .02 .06 .00 -.07

My parents or caretakers did not believe in God. .01 .01 -.04 .00 -.04 .81 .00 -.06 -.02

Growing up, people around me did not believe. .07 .06 .07 .05 -.01 .68 .00 .02 -.02

I find it uplifting to believe that God does not -.04 .02 .06 .02 .02 .00 .85 -.02 -.02 exist.

I find it comforting to believe that God does not .09 .02 .01 .05 -.04 .01 .73 -.04 -.02 exist.about religion or spirituality

It would be depressing for me to believe that God .12 -.10 -.01 .00 -.14 .07 .60 -.05 -.15 exists.

The possibility that God exists is unpleasant for me .23 .02 .03 .01 -.14 .04 .53 -.03 -.03 to consider.

Religion is bad for society. .07 -.01 -.03 .03 -.03 .04 -.04 -.87 -.03

Religious institutions are too powerful in society. -.07 -.05 .19 .16 .02 .06 .03 -.63 .02

The world would likely be better off if no one .06 .12 .01 -.08 .01 .01 .15 -.58 -.08 believed in God. RANGES Development and Validation 27

Belief in God prevents people from making society -.01 .13 .01 -.11 -.08 .00 .10 -.56 -.07 better.

I have an intuitive sense that there is no God. -.03 -.03 .06 -.01 -.04 .08 .00 .06 -.79

I know, at a deep, personal level, that God does not .01 .08 -.02 -.02 .00 .03 .08 -.06 -.64 exist.

I just know that God doesn’t exist. .08 .05 -.09 .03 .04 -.03 .10 -.06 -.63

The concept of God doesn’t make sense on a gut .00 .22 .09 .08 -.02 -.05 -.07 -.09 -.57 level.

Note: Factor 1 = Current Socialization, Factor 2 = Intellectual, Factor 3 = Bad Experiences with Religion, Factor 4 = Agnostic, Factor 5 = Relational, Factor 6 = Early Socialization, Factor 7 = Emotional, Factor 8 = Societal Concerns, Factor 9 = Intuitive. Bold factor loading indicates factor item loaded onto most strongly. RANGES Development and Validation 28

Table 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Loadings for RANGES Factors, Study 2 Full Items Unstd SE Std Factor 1: Current Socialization It is easier for me to fit in with my social group as a nonbeliever. 1.00 -- .85 Belief in God would be make me an outcast in my social group. 0.93 .06 .79 Belief in God is not accepted in my social group. 1.07 .06 .91 Other people would look down on me if I believed in God. 1.11 .06 .94 Factor 2: Intellectual The natural world makes more sense without the existence of God. 1.00 -- .82 I have scientific reasons for not believing in God’s existence. 0.98 .05 .81 The existence of God doesn’t make logical sense. 1.06 .05 .87 There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. 0.98 .06 .80 The idea of God is full of contradictions. 0.95 .06 .78 The events of history are inconsistent with the existence of God. 0.89 .05 .73 Factor 3: Bad Experiences with Religion Religious people have made my life worse. 1.00 -- .87 I have been hurt by religious people in the past. 1.12 .03 .98 I have been let down by religious institutions. 0.95 .03 .82 Religious institutions have harmed me as an individual. 1.11 .02 .96 Factor 4: Agnostic No one really knows for sure whether God does or doesn’t exist. 1.00 - .92 It would be arrogant to claim that I know for sure whether or not God exists. 0.82 .05 .75 God’s existence or non-existence cannot be proven. 0.92 .05 .85 I’m not sure whether or not God exists. 0.80 .05 .74 Factor 5: Relational If God does exist, that means that God has caused me to suffer. 1.00 -- .92 If God does exist, God should have been there for me when I was suffering. 0.96 .03 .82 Earlier in my life, I felt as though I was mistreated by God. 1.01 .03 .92 In the past, I felt as though God disappointed me. 1.04 .02 .95 Factor 6: Early Socialization Growing up, my parents or caretakers did not believe in God. 1.00 -- .93 Growing up, people around me did not believe in God. 0.99 .03 .92 When I was a child, my parents or caretakers taught me that God does not 0.98 .03 .91 exist. When I was a child, people around me told me that God does not exist. 1.03 .03 .95 Factor 7: Emotional It would be depressing for me to believe that God exists. 1.00 -- .86 I find it uplifting to believe that God does not exist. 0.99 .05 .86 I find it comforting to believe that God does not exist. 1.08 .04 .93 The possibility that God exists is unpleasant for me to consider. 0.98 .05 .85 Factor 8: Societal Concerns Religion is bad for society. 1.00 -- .88 Religious institutions are too powerful in society. 0.91 .04 .81 The world would likely be better off if no one believed in God. 0.98 .04 .87 Belief in God prevents people from making society better. 1.01 .03 .90 Factor 9: Intuitive The concept of God doesn’t make sense on a gut level. 1.00 -- .85 I have an intuitive sense that there is no God. 0.96 .03 .82 I know, at a deep, personal level, that God does not exist. 1.05 .04 .89 I just know that God doesn’t exist. 0.99 .04 .84 RANGES Development and Validation 29

Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for RANGES Subscale Scores Study 1 Study 2, Time 1 Study 2, Time 2 M SD α M SD α M SD α ICC Intellectual 3.60a 1.07 .86 3.95a 1.00 .85 3.91a 0.89 .79 .59 Agnostic 3.03b 1.13 .75 2.79c 1.22 .83 2.65c 1.21 .82 .66 Societal Concerns 2.90b 1.23 .82 3.10b 1.31 .88 3.25b 1.27 .88 .67 Current 1.55f 0.91 .92 1.36e 0.68 .82 1.23e 0.53 .80 .59 Socialization Early Socialization 1.83e 1.05 .77 1.39e 0.79 .90 1.32e 0.78 .91 .72 Intuitive 2.76c 1.17 .82 3.13b 1.21 .87 3.11b,c 1.22 .83 .52 Relational 2.13d 1.12 .85 1.99d 1.18 .90 1.73d 1.03 .84 .68 Bad Experiences 2.25d 1.22 .83 2.04d 1.14 .90 1.96d 1.12 .89 .60 with Religion Emotional 1.84e 1.02 .87 1.87d 1.07 .85 1.81d 1.09 .86 .56 Note: Means of subscales with different superscripts within a given column differ from other values within the column, Holm-corrected p < .05. ICC calculated using one-year follow-up sample from Study 2. RANGES Development and Validation 30

Table 6 Correlations among RANGES subscales

Bad Current God Early Societal Intellectual Experiences Agnostic Emotional Intuitive Socialization Relational Socialization Concerns with Religion

Current Socialization 1 .04 .44* .26* .46* .47* .63* .28* .22*

Intellectual -.01 1 .18* .22* .16* .12* .26* .49* .58*

Bad Experiences with Religion .37* .09 1 .28* .54* .36* .49* .52* .24*

Agnostic .21* .20* .27* 1 .34* .26* .24* .25* .19*

God Relational .29* .15 .58* .29* 1 .34* .53* .34* .28*

Early Socialization .58* -.08 .16 .12 .16 1 .46* .27* .28*

Emotional .36* .20* .53* .10 .52* .19* 1 .51* .43*

Societal Concerns .17 .57* .32* .09 .28* -.02 .41* 1 .42*

Intuitive .18* .47* .10 .08 .19* .12 .38* .40* 1 RANGES Development and Validation 31

Note: Values above the diagonal are from Study 1. Values below the diagonal are from Study 2.* p < .05, Holm-corrected. RANGES Development and Validation 32

Table 7

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of RANGES Subscales: Standardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Measures of Nonbelief and Sources of Doubt

Study 1 Study 2

R2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reasons for Nonbelief

Intellectual .37* -.07 .54* -.07 .03 -.13+ -.07 -.04 .06 .07 .30* .07 .51* .04 -.07 .07 -.02 -.25 .05 .06

Emotional (negative) .15* .03 .09 .06 -.03 .10 -.05 .29* -.02 .00 .29* -.18 -.12 .04 .07 .21 .10 .40* .07 -.14

Emotional (positive) .25* -.14 -.03 .06 -.02 -.06 -.01 .56* .07 -.02 .27* .06 -.16 -.05 -.03 -.02 .01 .50* .06 .03

Socialization .17* .03 -.03 -.04 .02 -.01 .38* .04 -.01 .02 .28* -.07 -.09 .02 .12 .02 .49* -.01 -.15 .07

Bad experiences with .35* -.04 -.02 .46* .09 .06 -.13 -.03 .23* -.03 .47* -.10 .04 .71* .01 .02 .00 -.13 .13 -.03 religion

Intuitive .27* -.04 -.06 .01 .00 -.03 -.13 -.09 .05 .58* .32* .01 -.11 .03 .11 -.01 .01 .01 -.11 .62*

Relational .26* -.13 -.14 .09 -.02 .38* -.05 .12 .17 .01 .30* -.04 -.08 .06 .02 .54* .02 -.03 .00 -.02 RANGES Development and Validation 33

Altemeyer Sources of Doubt

The problem of evil .17* -.13 .18 -.01 -.04 .36* -.05 .02 .10 -.06 .16* -.01 .15 .11 .04 .23* -.13 -.17 .16 -.08

The negative history of .24* -.15 .07 .12 .04 .09 -.02 .00 .39* -.05 .21* -.04 .13 .09 .04 .09 -.20 -.12 .26* .06 religion

Hypocrisy of religious .28* -.11 -.02 .21* .10 -.02 -.09 -.06 .44* .00 .26* -.05 .06 .14 .13 .06 -.16 -.16 .39* -.02 people

The death of a loved one .10* .00 -.02 -.09 -.01 .36* -.04 .01 .04 -.01 .17* -.05 -.16 .01 .02 .39* .05 -.05 .10 .10

Religious teachings about .17* -.16 .03 .21* .07 -.14 .01 -.02 .29* .04 .21* -.03 .13 .13 .06 -.05 -.11 -.07 .32* .04 the role of women

Being religious did not .16* -.14 -.06 .22* .11 .05 -.17 .09 .14 .11 .28* -.04 .14 .14 .05 .28* -.16 .04 .12 -.01 bring peace, joy

Intolerance by religious .21* -.17 .09 .20* .06 -.09 .03 -.06 .34* -.03 .29* -.06 .19 .16 .10 .13 -.18 -.19 .22 .11 people to some groups

Threats about hell .17* -.14 .03 .08 .06 -.05 -.04 .13 .34* -.06 .25* -.05 .15 .15 .08 .00 -.17 -.01 .26* .07 RANGES Development and Validation 34

Religion kept people from enjoying themselves in .24* -.17 .03 .12 -.01 .01 -.06 .09 .40* -.01 .21* .01 .16 .05 .03 .03 -.13 .05 .26* .01 sensible ways

Religious tenets don’t .34* -.25* .39* .04 .09 -.02 -.07 -.08 .19 .05 .33* -.11 .32* .10 .12 .02 -.25* -.07 .11 .09 make sense

Religious faith prevents .30* -.15 .24* .20* .04 -.21 -.06 .01 .34* -.05 .28* -.01 .18 .06 .09 .02 -.21 -.06 .35* -.05 questioning

Claims that the Bible is the .22* -.20 .18 -.01 .07 -.01 -.05 -.04 .32* .06 .31* -.09 .32* -.05 .11 .08 -.18 -.01 .14 .09 word of God

Note: * p < .05, + p < .10, Holm-corrected for all multiple regression coefficients and R2 used in validity testing, separately for Study 1 and Study 2. Highest VIF = 2.44. Factor 1 = Current Socialization, Factor 2 = Intellectual, Factor 3 = Bad Experiences with Religion, Factor 4 = Agnostic, Factor 5 = Relational, Factor 6 = Early Socialization, Factor 7 = Emotional, Factor 8 = Societal Concerns, Factor 9 = Intuitive.

Table 8

Predictive Validity of RANGES Subscales: Standardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Experiences and Identities Related to Belief and Nonbelief Study 1 Study 2 R2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lifetime history with religion or spirituality Had positive emotion at a .10* -.02 -.12 .19 .21* -.02 -.10 .02 -.07 -.11 .10* .15 -.11 .13 -.02 .03 -.17 .02 -.09 -.15 god or gods Felt angry at a god or gods .26* -.07 .02 .05 .01 .52* -.14 -.02 .09 -.09 .39* -.01 .11 .25* -.05 .50* -.16 -.11 .01 -.03 Had positive feelings at .07* -.02 -.14 .07 .20* -.04 -.12 .08 -.11 -.04 .09* .15 -.01 .16 -.08 -.01 -.15 -.03 -.21 -.10 religion Had negative feelings at .22* -.13 .14 .13 -.01 -.06 -.20* .03 .32* .00 .24* -.17 .12 .27* -.02 .12 -.02 -.20 .25* .10 religion Negative experiences .21* -.14 .15 .46* .02 -.10 -.13 .08 .06 -.11 .39* -.07 .15 .68* -.08 -.02 -.05 -.09 .02 -.04 with religious people Believed a god or gods .18* -.02 -.02 .10 .01 .33* -.10 .14 -.02 -.10 .29* .02 .01 .17 -.04 .38* -.10 .08 .04 -.15 RANGES Development and Validation 35

felt angry at you

Past and current nonbelief Desire for God to exist .19* .02 -.22* .03 .30* .19+ .07 -.13 -.08 -.02 .14* .01 -.20 -.06 .16 .08 .07 -.05 -.01 -.18 Certainty of nonbelief .22* .00 .20* .04 -.32* -.11 -.15 .10 .03 .18+ .34* -.16 .46* .10 .01 -.05 -.09 -.13 .00 .16 Agnostic beliefs .27* -.14 -.30* .05 .34* .10 .14+ -.05 .00 -.18+ .09* -.11 -.03 .04 .30* -.07 .09 -.07 .00 .01 Identification as agnostic .13* -.10 -.11 .02 .31* -.01 -.04 .01 -.07 -.14 .12* -.08 -.12 ..01 .29* -.04 .05 -.08 .13 -.11 Religious quest .09* -.02 -.03 .12 .25* .07 -.04 .02 -.07 -.02 .10* -.03 -.05 .09 .26* -.10 .03 .05 .15 -.12 complexity

Religious and spiritual struggles Divine .24* .01 .02 .08 .01 .40* .05 .13 -.15+ -.15 .24* .24 -.17 .15 -.14 .19 .02 .04 .04 -.07 Interpersonal .21* -.10 .08 .38* -.01 -.03 -.15 .14 .11 -.05 .29* -.07 -.06 .43* -.03 -.06 -.02 .12 .23 -.06

Note: * p < .05, Holm-corrected for all multiple regression coefficients and R2 used in validity testing, separately for Study 1 and Study 2.. Highest VIF = 2.44. Factor 1 = Current Socialization, Factor 2 = Intellectual, Factor 3 = Bad Experiences with Religion, Factor 4 = Agnostic, Factor 5 = Relational, Factor 6 = Early Socialization, Factor 7 = Emotional, Factor 8 = Societal Concerns, Factor 9 = Intuitive