“Weirdness” is closely related to a high score in the psychological trait openness in the big5.
According to this meta-analysis the correlations between religiosity and openness are somewhat mixed:
“while Openness is negatively related to religious fundamentalism (weighted mean r=−0.14, P<0.01) and, to some extent, intrinsic-general religiosity (r=−0.06, P<0.01), it is positively related to measures of open or mature religiosity and spirituality (r=0.22, P<0.0001).”
Also, I bet they didn’t check the openness level of people who start or join new religions—such people are pretty rare, but they’re the ones who keep the religious landscape lively.
I was assuming you meant something like “willing to go against the dominant norms in one’s society” by it, which is close related to Openness.
I’d expect those people joining/starting new religions to be more open, thus the operalization of your hypothesis in terms of big5-Openness. There should probably be studies on smaller religions, such as new age, which might aptly be called new.
“Weirdness” is closely related to a high score in the psychological trait openness in the big5.
According to this meta-analysis the correlations between religiosity and openness are somewhat mixed:
“Weirdness” is in the mind of the beholder.
Also, I bet they didn’t check the openness level of people who start or join new religions—such people are pretty rare, but they’re the ones who keep the religious landscape lively.
I was assuming you meant something like “willing to go against the dominant norms in one’s society” by it, which is close related to Openness.
I’d expect those people joining/starting new religions to be more open, thus the operalization of your hypothesis in terms of big5-Openness. There should probably be studies on smaller religions, such as new age, which might aptly be called new.