Table 6. Explorative logistic regression analysis for variables predicting religiosity by atheists (N = 263) and theists (N = 524) in Study 4, controlling for background variables.
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE B | eB | [95% CI] | B | SE B | eB | [95% CI] | B | SE B | eB | [95% CI] | |
Intercept | -0.67 | 0.29 | -1.14 | 0.53 | -2.06 | 0.56 | ||||||
Gender | 0.58*** | 0.17 | 1.78 | [1.31–2.43] | 0.58*** | 0.18 | 1.78 | [1.26–2.51] | 0.60*** | 0.18 | 1.82 | [1.23–2.59] |
Age | 0.03*** | 0.01 | 1.03 | [1.02–1.05] | 0.04*** | 0.01 | 1.04 | [1.03–1.06] | 0.04*** | 0.01 | 1.04 | [1.02–1.05] |
Education | 0.10 | 0.18 | 1.11 | [0.81–1.51] | -0.03 | 0.16 | 0.98 | [0.71–1.35] | 0.03 | 0.17 | 1.03 | [0.74–1.43] |
AQ-centered | -0.16 | 0.29 | 0.85 | [0.48–1.51] | -0.02 | 0.30 | 0.99 | [0.55–1.77] | ||||
AQ2-centered | -1.95*** | 0.49 | 0.14 | [0.06–0.37] | -1.88*** | 0.51 | 0.15 | [0.06–1.41] | ||||
EQ-SQ | 0.24 | 0.15 | 1.27 | [0.94–1.71] | 0.26 | 0.16 | 1.30 | [0.96–1.77] | ||||
Intentional | 0.00 | 0.01 | 1.00 | [0.99–1.01] | 0.00 | 0.01 | 1.00 | [0.99–1.01] | ||||
Random | 0.01* | 0.00 | 1.01 | [1.00–1.01] | 0.01* | 0.00 | 1.01 | [1.00–1.01] | ||||
Mechanistic | 0.01** | 0.00 | 1.01 | [1.00–1.02] | 0.01** | 0.00 | 1.01 | [1.00–1.02] | ||||
CREDs | 0.37*** | 0.06 | 1.45 | [1.30–1.62] |
Gender is coded 1 for females and 0 for males, education is coded 1 for high educated and 0 for low educated. AQ-centered = centered Autism Quotient, AQ2-centered = quadratic term of the centered Autism Quotient, EQ-SQ = hyper-systemizing, intentional, random, and mechanistic are the different intentionality ratings for the geometrical figures videos, CREDs = Credibility Enhancing Displays scale. eB = exponentiated B, B = odds ratio.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001. R2 (Nagelkerke) = .06 for Model 1, R2 (Nagelkerke) = .07 for Model 2, R2 (Nagelkerke) = .12 for Model 3 and R2 (Nagelkerke) = .19 for Model 4.