2 Discrepancies from Pre-Registration

Our studies were pre-registered on AsPredicted (Study 1, Study 2). To maintain a focused presentation of analysis results and prevent scope creep, several analyses and presentation formats deviate from the initial pre-registration documents. The table below details these deviations and their justifications.

Table 1: Discrepancies from Pre-Registration

Topic / Variable	Pre-registered Plan	Actual Implementation in Main Text	Justification
Primary Predictor Choice	Test both self-reported religiosity and religious behavior frequency.	Focused on Religious Behavior Score (RBS) as the primary predictor in main text for Question 3 and 4. Self-reported religiosity results are reported in the Supplementary Materials.	RBS measures concrete frequency of attendance and prayer, anchoring on frequency from never to more than once every day. It also exhibited consistently larger effect sizes.
Outcome (DV) Selection	Test both frequency of and interest in seeking moral advice from AI chatbots.	Focused on Frequency as the primary outcome in the main text. Interest-based results are reported in the Supplementary Materials.	Moving the secondary interest outcome to the supplement reduces main-text length and redundancy, as results for Interest largely mirror those for Frequency.
Model Presentation	Simple linear regressions for primary hypotheses.	Presented the multiple regression models controlling for demographic covariates in the main text and simple regressionsin the Supplementary Material for Questions 1 and 2.	Control for demographic covariates is more conservative and robust. Moving simple regressions to the supplement reduces main-text table size and redundancy.
Exploratory Parallel Mediation	Pre-registered parallel mediation as exploratory.	Saturated parallel models with cluster-representative mediators.	The pre-registration did not specify how to structure the parallel models. We chose the candidate mediator explaining the largest proportion of variance from each cluster to minimize criterion contamination among highly correlated scales.
Study 1 General Topic Data	Collect and analyze general (non-moral) advice seeking and truth objectivity.	Excluded general-topic analyses from the text.	Study 1 collected 12 split hypotheses across general vs. moral and self-reported vs. behavioral religiosity. To prevent the scope from getting out of hand, we omitted general-topic analyses. All raw data and codebooks are published on OSF for public review.

3 Primary Simple Linear Regression Models (without Covariates)

The following tables present the simple linear regression models (without demographic covariates) for the primary relationships reported in the main manuscript for Questions 1 and 2: Self-Reported Religiosity predicting Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots, and Religious Behavior Score predicting Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots.

Table 2: Simple Linear Regression: Self-Reported Religiosity Predicting Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots

Study	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	Adjusted R²
Study 1	0.21	0.05	0.10	0.31	< .001	0.04
Study 2	0.27	0.05	0.17	0.37	< .001	0.07

Table 3: Simple Linear Regression: Religious Behavior Score Predicting Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots

Study	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	Adjusted R²
Study 1	0.31	0.05	0.21	0.41	< .001	0.09
Study 2	0.33	0.05	0.23	0.43	< .001	0.11

4 Pilot Studies

Two pilot studies provided initial evidence for the relationship between religiosity and seeking moral advice from AI chatbots. Pilot 1 (N = 30, November 22, 2024) and Pilot 2 (N = 106, January 09, 2025) recruited participants through Prolific. In both pilot studies, seeking moral guidance from AI chatbots was assessed with the item “How much do you usually seek moral guidance from Chatbot/AI assistant?” (1 = None at all, 5 = A great deal), and self-reported religiosity was measured on a scale of 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Very). Demographic characteristics for the pilot studies are presented below.

Table 4: Demographic Characteristics of Pilot Studies

Characteristic	Pilot 1	Pilot 2
Data Collection Date	November 22, 2024	January 09, 2025
Sample Size (N)	30	106
Age (Mean +/- SD)	35.07 +/- 10.41	35.35 +/- 13.95
Gender - Woman	11 (36.67%)	46 (43.4%)
Gender - Man	18 (60%)	60 (56.6%)
Gender - Other	1 (3.33%)	0 (0%)
SES (1-10) (Mean +/- SD)	5.66 +/- 2.06	5.57 +/- 1.78
Political Leaning (1-7) (Mean +/- SD)	3.63 +/- 1.73	3.89 +/- 1.77
Race - Black or African American	10 (33.33%)	34 (32.08%)
Race - East Asian	1 (3.33%)	3 (2.83%)
Race - Hispanic or Latina/o/x/e	0 (0%)	5 (4.72%)
Race - Indigenous American, American Indian, or Alaska Native	0 (0%)	1 (0.94%)
Race - Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	0 (0%)	1 (0.94%)
Race - South Asian	0 (0%)	2 (1.89%)
Race - Southeast Asian	0 (0%)	1 (0.94%)
Race - White	18 (60%)	50 (47.17%)
Race - Prefer not to disclose	0 (0%)	2 (1.89%)
Race - Multirace	1 (3.33%)	7 (6.6%)
Faith - Agnostic	4 (13.33%)	11 (10.38%)
Faith - Atheist	2 (6.67%)	8 (7.55%)
Faith - Buddhist	0 (0%)	3 (2.83%)
Faith - Christian	18 (60%)	63 (59.43%)
Faith - Hindu	0 (0%)	2 (1.89%)
Faith - Jewish	1 (3.33%)	0 (0%)
Faith - Muslim	2 (6.67%)	2 (1.89%)
Faith - Other	2 (6.67%)	9 (8.49%)
Faith - Multifaith	1 (3.33%)	6 (5.66%)
Faith - Did not answer	0 (0%)	2 (1.89%)

4.1 Pilot Study Correlations: Self-Reported Religiosity → Seeking Moral Guidance from AI

Table 5: Pilot Studies: Pearson Correlations Between Self-Reported Religiosity and Seeking Moral Guidance From AI Chatbots

Study	N	r	t	df	p
Pilot 1	30	0.58	3.75	28	<.001
Pilot 2	106	0.40	4.37	103	<.001

Figure 1: Pilot Studies: Self-Reported Religiosity and Seeking Moral Guidance from AI Chatbots

Table 6: Pilot Studies: Self-Reported Religiosity Predicting Seeking Moral Guidance From AI Chatbots

	Model 1					Model 2
Study	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Pilot 1	0.58	0.15	0.26	0.89	< .001	0.43	0.20	0.02	0.85	0.041
Pilot 2	0.40	0.09	0.22	0.57	< .001	0.28	0.09	0.09	0.46	0.004

5 Sources of Moral Advice

5.1 Source Ranking Plots

5.1.1 Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice

Figure 2: Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice by Source

5.1.2 Interest in Seeking Moral Advice

Figure 3: Interest in Seeking Moral Advice by Source

5.1.3 Accessibility of Moral Advice Sources (Study 2 Only)

Figure 4: Study 2: Accessibility of Each Source of Moral Advice

5.2 Source Correlation Heatmaps

5.2.1 Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice

Figure 5: Study 1: Correlation Heatmap — Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice Across Sources

Figure 6: Study 2: Correlation Heatmap — Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice Across Sources

5.2.2 Interest in Seeking Moral Advice

Figure 7: Study 1: Correlation Heatmap — Interest in Seeking Moral Advice Across Sources

Figure 8: Study 2: Correlation Heatmap — Interest in Seeking Moral Advice Across Sources

6 Study Variable Correlation Analysis

6.1 Correlation Tables

Table 7: Study 1: Pearson Correlations Between Study Variables

Variable	Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots	Interest in Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots	Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	General Open-Mindedness	Open-Mindedness on Moral Issues	Intellectual Humility (CIHS)	Intellectual Humility (MMIH)	Belief in Moral Objectivity	Perceived Valence of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	Self-Reported Religiosity	Religious Behavior Score	Age	Education	Income	Socioeconomic Status	Political Orientation
Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots	—
Interest in Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots	0.80*** [0.76, 0.83]	—
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.70*** [0.64, 0.75]	0.63*** [0.56, 0.69]	—
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.63*** [0.56, 0.69]	0.66*** [0.60, 0.72]	0.88*** [0.86, 0.90]	—
General Open-Mindedness	0.38*** [0.29, 0.47]	0.35*** [0.25, 0.44]	0.47*** [0.38, 0.55]	0.47*** [0.38, 0.55]	—
Open-Mindedness on Moral Issues	0.33*** [0.23, 0.42]	0.31*** [0.21, 0.40]	0.48*** [0.39, 0.56]	0.52*** [0.44, 0.59]	0.57*** [0.49, 0.64]	—
Intellectual Humility (CIHS)	-0.11* [-0.21, -0.01]	-0.14** [-0.24, -0.04]	-0.15** [-0.25, -0.05]	-0.07 [-0.17, 0.04]	0.12* [0.02, 0.22]	0.15** [0.04, 0.25]	—
Intellectual Humility (MMIH)	-0.27*** [-0.36, -0.17]	-0.30*** [-0.39, -0.20]	-0.29*** [-0.39, -0.19]	-0.23*** [-0.33, -0.13]	-0.05 [-0.16, 0.05]	-0.05 [-0.16, 0.05]	0.73*** [0.68, 0.78]	—
Belief in Moral Objectivity	0.09 [-0.01, 0.19]	0.07 [-0.03, 0.18]	0.12* [0.01, 0.22]	0.13* [0.03, 0.23]	0.11* [0.00, 0.21]	0.05 [-0.06, 0.15]	-0.13* [-0.23, -0.02]	-0.19*** [-0.29, -0.09]	—
Perceived Valence of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.47*** [0.39, 0.55]	0.53*** [0.45, 0.60]	0.35*** [0.25, 0.44]	0.36*** [0.26, 0.45]	0.23*** [0.13, 0.33]	0.19*** [0.09, 0.29]	-0.01 [-0.12, 0.09]	-0.07 [-0.17, 0.04]	0.08 [-0.03, 0.18]	—
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.49*** [0.41, 0.57]	0.56*** [0.48, 0.63]	0.40*** [0.31, 0.49]	0.41*** [0.32, 0.49]	0.25*** [0.15, 0.35]	0.22*** [0.12, 0.32]	-0.10 [-0.21, 0.00]	-0.18*** [-0.28, -0.08]	0.11* [0.01, 0.21]	0.78*** [0.74, 0.82]	—
Self-Reported Religiosity	0.21*** [0.11, 0.31]	0.18*** [0.08, 0.28]	0.27*** [0.17, 0.37]	0.24*** [0.14, 0.34]	0.14** [0.04, 0.24]	0.09 [-0.02, 0.19]	-0.08 [-0.19, 0.02]	-0.07 [-0.17, 0.04]	0.28*** [0.18, 0.38]	0.16** [0.06, 0.26]	0.19*** [0.09, 0.29]	—
Religious Behavior Score	0.31*** [0.21, 0.40]	0.28*** [0.18, 0.37]	0.37*** [0.27, 0.46]	0.31*** [0.21, 0.40]	0.23*** [0.13, 0.33]	0.15** [0.04, 0.25]	-0.04 [-0.15, 0.06]	-0.06 [-0.16, 0.05]	0.26*** [0.16, 0.35]	0.26*** [0.16, 0.35]	0.26*** [0.16, 0.36]	0.81*** [0.77, 0.84]	—
Age	-0.17** [-0.27, -0.07]	-0.16** [-0.26, -0.05]	-0.14** [-0.24, -0.03]	-0.15** [-0.26, -0.05]	-0.18*** [-0.28, -0.07]	-0.26*** [-0.35, -0.16]	0.03 [-0.07, 0.14]	0.09 [-0.01, 0.19]	0.03 [-0.07, 0.14]	0.05 [-0.05, 0.16]	-0.02 [-0.12, 0.09]	0.05 [-0.06, 0.15]	0.09 [-0.02, 0.19]	—
Education	0.22*** [0.12, 0.32]	0.16** [0.06, 0.26]	0.28*** [0.18, 0.38]	0.25*** [0.15, 0.35]	0.27*** [0.17, 0.36]	0.21*** [0.10, 0.30]	0.03 [-0.08, 0.13]	-0.01 [-0.12, 0.10]	0.09 [-0.01, 0.20]	0.08 [-0.03, 0.18]	0.08 [-0.02, 0.19]	0.08 [-0.02, 0.18]	0.21*** [0.11, 0.31]	0.15** [0.05, 0.25]	—
Income	0.10 [-0.01, 0.20]	0.08 [-0.02, 0.19]	0.19*** [0.08, 0.29]	0.16** [0.06, 0.26]	0.09 [-0.01, 0.20]	0.04 [-0.07, 0.14]	0.01 [-0.10, 0.11]	0.02 [-0.09, 0.12]	0.03 [-0.08, 0.13]	-0.00 [-0.11, 0.10]	0.05 [-0.06, 0.15]	0.10 [-0.01, 0.20]	0.15** [0.05, 0.25]	0.02 [-0.08, 0.13]	0.34*** [0.25, 0.43]	—
Socioeconomic Status	0.19*** [0.08, 0.29]	0.22*** [0.12, 0.32]	0.30*** [0.20, 0.40]	0.30*** [0.20, 0.39]	0.20*** [0.10, 0.30]	0.10 [-0.01, 0.20]	-0.08 [-0.18, 0.03]	-0.10 [-0.20, 0.01]	0.16** [0.06, 0.26]	0.08 [-0.02, 0.19]	0.16** [0.05, 0.26]	0.24*** [0.13, 0.33]	0.30*** [0.20, 0.39]	0.05 [-0.05, 0.16]	0.42*** [0.33, 0.50]	0.53*** [0.45, 0.60]	—
Political Orientation	0.11* [0.00, 0.21]	0.12* [0.01, 0.22]	0.12* [0.02, 0.23]	0.09 [-0.02, 0.19]	-0.03 [-0.14, 0.07]	-0.06 [-0.16, 0.05]	-0.17** [-0.27, -0.06]	-0.11* [-0.21, -0.01]	0.18*** [0.08, 0.28]	0.14** [0.04, 0.24]	0.10 [-0.01, 0.20]	0.49*** [0.41, 0.57]	0.50*** [0.41, 0.57]	0.10 [-0.01, 0.20]	0.06 [-0.05, 0.16]	0.17** [0.07, 0.27]	0.22*** [0.12, 0.32]	—

Table 8: Study 2: Pearson Correlations Between Study Variables

Variable	Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots	Interest in Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots	Access to AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	Overall Access to Sources of Moral Advice	Open-Mindedness on Moral Issues	Belief in Moral Objectivity	Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	Fear of Negative Judgement	Self-Reflective Tendencies	Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	Deference to Authority (MAC-Q)	Self-Reported Religiosity	Religious Behavior Score	Age	Education	Political Orientation	Socioeconomic Status	Income
Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots	—
Interest in Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots	0.84*** [0.81, 0.87]	—
Access to AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.32*** [0.22, 0.41]	0.34*** [0.25, 0.43]	—
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.64*** [0.57, 0.69]	0.51*** [0.43, 0.59]	0.20*** [0.10, 0.30]	—
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.55*** [0.48, 0.62]	0.57*** [0.49, 0.63]	0.24*** [0.14, 0.34]	0.84*** [0.80, 0.86]	—
Overall Access to Sources of Moral Advice	0.23*** [0.13, 0.33]	0.25*** [0.14, 0.34]	0.50*** [0.41, 0.57]	0.44*** [0.35, 0.52]	0.50*** [0.42, 0.57]	—
Open-Mindedness on Moral Issues	0.38*** [0.29, 0.47]	0.36*** [0.27, 0.45]	0.11* [0.01, 0.22]	0.47*** [0.38, 0.55]	0.47*** [0.39, 0.55]	0.26*** [0.16, 0.36]	—
Belief in Moral Objectivity	0.14** [0.03, 0.24]	0.15** [0.05, 0.25]	0.08 [-0.03, 0.18]	0.08 [-0.02, 0.19]	0.10 [-0.00, 0.21]	0.12* [0.02, 0.22]	0.02 [-0.08, 0.13]	—
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.64*** [0.57, 0.70]	0.72*** [0.67, 0.77]	0.32*** [0.22, 0.41]	0.39*** [0.30, 0.48]	0.40*** [0.30, 0.48]	0.22*** [0.12, 0.32]	0.31*** [0.21, 0.40]	0.15** [0.04, 0.25]	—
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.44*** [0.35, 0.52]	0.49*** [0.41, 0.57]	0.17** [0.07, 0.28]	0.31*** [0.21, 0.40]	0.30*** [0.20, 0.40]	0.13* [0.02, 0.23]	0.30*** [0.20, 0.39]	0.18*** [0.08, 0.28]	0.57*** [0.49, 0.64]	—
Fear of Negative Judgement	0.05 [-0.05, 0.16]	0.02 [-0.08, 0.13]	0.04 [-0.07, 0.14]	0.09 [-0.02, 0.19]	0.07 [-0.03, 0.18]	-0.06 [-0.17, 0.04]	0.07 [-0.04, 0.17]	-0.07 [-0.18, 0.03]	-0.03 [-0.13, 0.08]	-0.02 [-0.13, 0.09]	—
Self-Reflective Tendencies	0.17** [0.07, 0.27]	0.20*** [0.10, 0.30]	0.17** [0.06, 0.27]	0.24*** [0.13, 0.33]	0.30*** [0.20, 0.39]	0.15** [0.05, 0.26]	0.40*** [0.30, 0.48]	0.03 [-0.08, 0.13]	0.14** [0.03, 0.24]	0.12* [0.02, 0.22]	0.13* [0.03, 0.23]	—
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	0.32*** [0.22, 0.41]	0.30*** [0.20, 0.40]	0.20*** [0.09, 0.30]	0.35*** [0.25, 0.44]	0.34*** [0.24, 0.43]	0.27*** [0.17, 0.36]	0.17** [0.07, 0.27]	0.34*** [0.25, 0.43]	0.27*** [0.17, 0.36]	0.32*** [0.22, 0.41]	-0.12* [-0.22, -0.02]	0.04 [-0.06, 0.15]	—
Deference to Authority (MAC-Q)	0.31*** [0.21, 0.40]	0.34*** [0.24, 0.43]	0.16** [0.05, 0.26]	0.37*** [0.27, 0.45]	0.38*** [0.28, 0.47]	0.20*** [0.10, 0.30]	0.23*** [0.12, 0.32]	0.21*** [0.11, 0.31]	0.32*** [0.22, 0.41]	0.36*** [0.26, 0.45]	0.03 [-0.08, 0.13]	0.11* [0.00, 0.21]	0.64*** [0.57, 0.70]	—
Self-Reported Religiosity	0.27*** [0.17, 0.37]	0.21*** [0.11, 0.31]	0.19*** [0.08, 0.29]	0.32*** [0.22, 0.41]	0.29*** [0.19, 0.38]	0.30*** [0.20, 0.40]	0.08 [-0.02, 0.19]	0.36*** [0.26, 0.45]	0.17** [0.07, 0.27]	0.16** [0.06, 0.26]	-0.06 [-0.16, 0.05]	0.10 [-0.00, 0.20]	0.51*** [0.43, 0.58]	0.28*** [0.18, 0.37]	—
Religious Behavior Score	0.33*** [0.23, 0.42]	0.23*** [0.13, 0.33]	0.16** [0.06, 0.26]	0.37*** [0.27, 0.45]	0.30*** [0.21, 0.40]	0.28*** [0.18, 0.37]	0.12* [0.01, 0.22]	0.31*** [0.22, 0.41]	0.17** [0.07, 0.28]	0.22*** [0.12, 0.32]	-0.06 [-0.16, 0.05]	0.07 [-0.04, 0.17]	0.53*** [0.46, 0.61]	0.32*** [0.23, 0.41]	0.85*** [0.81, 0.87]	—
Age	-0.15** [-0.25, -0.05]	-0.09 [-0.19, 0.02]	-0.14** [-0.25, -0.04]	-0.23*** [-0.33, -0.13]	-0.20*** [-0.30, -0.10]	-0.06 [-0.16, 0.05]	-0.20*** [-0.30, -0.10]	0.10 [-0.00, 0.21]	-0.11* [-0.22, -0.01]	0.07 [-0.03, 0.18]	-0.30*** [-0.39, -0.20]	-0.15** [-0.25, -0.04]	0.11* [0.00, 0.21]	0.01 [-0.09, 0.12]	0.01 [-0.10, 0.12]	0.02 [-0.09, 0.12]	—
Education	0.12* [0.01, 0.22]	0.08 [-0.03, 0.18]	0.03 [-0.07, 0.14]	0.18*** [0.07, 0.28]	0.15** [0.05, 0.25]	0.17** [0.07, 0.27]	0.05 [-0.05, 0.16]	-0.00 [-0.11, 0.10]	0.11* [0.01, 0.21]	-0.03 [-0.14, 0.07]	-0.12* [-0.22, -0.01]	0.02 [-0.09, 0.12]	0.00 [-0.10, 0.11]	-0.03 [-0.13, 0.08]	0.06 [-0.04, 0.17]	0.11* [0.01, 0.21]	0.01 [-0.10, 0.11]	—
Political Orientation	0.21*** [0.11, 0.31]	0.18*** [0.08, 0.28]	0.08 [-0.03, 0.18]	0.17** [0.07, 0.27]	0.11* [0.01, 0.22]	0.11* [0.01, 0.22]	0.04 [-0.07, 0.14]	0.27*** [0.17, 0.37]	0.20*** [0.09, 0.29]	0.18*** [0.08, 0.28]	-0.08 [-0.18, 0.03]	-0.08 [-0.18, 0.03]	0.63*** [0.56, 0.69]	0.42*** [0.33, 0.51]	0.46*** [0.38, 0.54]	0.48*** [0.39, 0.56]	0.04 [-0.07, 0.14]	0.02 [-0.09, 0.12]	—
Socioeconomic Status	0.16** [0.05, 0.26]	0.10 [-0.01, 0.20]	0.02 [-0.09, 0.12]	0.25*** [0.15, 0.35]	0.20*** [0.09, 0.30]	0.21*** [0.11, 0.31]	0.16** [0.06, 0.26]	0.10 [-0.00, 0.21]	0.15** [0.04, 0.25]	0.09 [-0.02, 0.19]	-0.12* [-0.23, -0.02]	0.06 [-0.04, 0.17]	0.19*** [0.08, 0.29]	0.13* [0.03, 0.24]	0.12* [0.02, 0.23]	0.21*** [0.11, 0.31]	-0.01 [-0.11, 0.10]	0.47*** [0.38, 0.55]	0.18*** [0.08, 0.28]	—
Income	0.10 [-0.01, 0.20]	0.02 [-0.08, 0.13]	0.13* [0.03, 0.23]	0.15** [0.04, 0.25]	0.13* [0.02, 0.23]	0.19*** [0.08, 0.29]	0.10 [-0.00, 0.20]	-0.00 [-0.11, 0.11]	0.07 [-0.04, 0.17]	-0.02 [-0.13, 0.08]	-0.02 [-0.12, 0.09]	0.05 [-0.05, 0.16]	0.06 [-0.04, 0.17]	0.06 [-0.05, 0.16]	0.04 [-0.07, 0.14]	0.12* [0.02, 0.22]	-0.01 [-0.11, 0.10]	0.44*** [0.35, 0.52]	0.06 [-0.05, 0.16]	0.57*** [0.50, 0.64]	—

6.2 Correlation Heatmaps

Figure 9: Study 1: Correlation Heatmap — Study Variables

Figure 10: Study 2: Correlation Heatmap — Study Variables

7 Correlation Analyses: Predictor → AI Moral Interest

The following analyses examine the two supplementary predictor–outcome relationships not covered in the main body: Religious Behavior Score → Interest and Self-Reported Religiosity → Interest. Correlations are presented with predictor first, then study.

Table 9: Pearson Correlations Between Religiosity Predictors and Interest in Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots

Predictor	Study	N	r	t	df	p
Religious Behavior Score	Study 1	348	0.28	5.32	346	<.001
	Study 2	347	0.23	4.47	345	<.001
Self-Reported Religiosity	Study 1	348	0.18	3.40	346	<.001
	Study 2	347	0.21	4.07	345	<.001

Figure 11: Religious Behavior Score and Self-Reported Religiosity Predicting Interest in Seeking Moral Advice from AI Chatbots

7.1 Regression Analyses: Predictor → AI Moral Interest

We report regression analyses for both supplementary outcome models: Religious Behavior Score → Interest and Self-Reported Religiosity → Interest.

7.1.1 Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Interest

Table 10: Religious Behavior Score Predicting Interest in Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots

	Model 1					Model 2
Study	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Study 1	0.28	0.05	0.17	0.38	< .001	0.25	0.06	0.13	0.37	< .001
Study 2	0.23	0.05	0.13	0.34	< .001	0.18	0.06	0.06	0.30	0.003

7.1.2 Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Interest

Table 11: Self-Reported Religiosity Predicting Interest in Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots

	Model 1					Model 2
Study	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Study 1	0.18	0.05	0.08	0.28	< .001	0.13	0.06	0.01	0.25	0.027
Study 2	0.21	0.05	0.11	0.32	< .001	0.16	0.06	0.04	0.27	0.008

8 Mediation Analyses

8.1 Regression Analyses: Predictor → Mediators

8.1.1 Self-Reported Religiosity → Mediators

The following tables report the regression of Self-Reported Religiosity onto each candidate mediator. These results underlie both the Self-Reported Religiosity → Frequency and Self-Reported Religiosity → Interest mediation pathways, as the Religiosity → Mediator path is identical across both.

Table 12: Study 1: Self-Reported Religiosity Predicting Each Mediator

	Model 1						Model 2
Mediator	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	Sig (Corrected)	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	Sig (Corrected)
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.27	0.05	0.17	0.37	< .001	Yes	0.23	0.06	0.11	0.34	< .001	Yes
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.24	0.05	0.14	0.34	< .001	Yes	0.21	0.06	0.10	0.32	< .001	Yes
General Open-Mindedness	0.14	0.05	0.04	0.25	0.008	No	0.17	0.06	0.05	0.28	0.004	Yes
Open-Mindedness on Moral Issues	0.09	0.05	-0.02	0.19	0.099	No	0.13	0.06	0.01	0.24	0.029	No
Intellectual Humility (CIHS)	-0.08	0.05	-0.19	0.02	0.127	No	0.01	0.06	-0.11	0.13	0.847	No
Intellectual Humility (MMIH)	-0.07	0.05	-0.17	0.04	0.197	No	-0.00	0.06	-0.13	0.12	0.940	No
Belief in Moral Objectivity	0.28	0.05	0.18	0.39	< .001	Yes	0.23	0.06	0.11	0.35	< .001	Yes
Perceived Valence of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.16	0.05	0.06	0.27	0.002	Yes	0.10	0.06	-0.02	0.22	0.104	No
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.19	0.05	0.09	0.30	< .001	Yes	0.16	0.06	0.04	0.28	0.012	No

Table 13: Study 2: Self-Reported Religiosity Predicting Each Mediator

	Model 1						Model 2
Mediator	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	Sig (Corrected)	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p	Sig (Corrected)
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.32	0.05	0.22	0.42	< .001	Yes	0.29	0.05	0.18	0.40	< .001	Yes
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.29	0.05	0.19	0.39	< .001	Yes	0.29	0.06	0.17	0.40	< .001	Yes
Open-Mindedness on Moral Issues	0.08	0.05	-0.02	0.19	0.126	No	0.08	0.06	-0.04	0.19	0.204	No
Belief in Moral Objectivity	0.36	0.05	0.26	0.46	< .001	Yes	0.30	0.06	0.19	0.41	< .001	Yes
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.17	0.05	0.07	0.28	0.001	Yes	0.09	0.06	-0.02	0.21	0.112	No
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.16	0.05	0.06	0.27	0.003	Yes	0.10	0.06	-0.02	0.22	0.101	No
Fear of Negative Judgement	-0.06	0.05	-0.16	0.05	0.272	No	-0.02	0.06	-0.14	0.09	0.692	No
Self-Reflective Tendencies	0.10	0.05	-0.00	0.21	0.061	No	0.17	0.06	0.05	0.29	0.004	Yes
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	0.51	0.05	0.42	0.60	< .001	Yes	0.28	0.04	0.19	0.37	< .001	Yes
Deference to Authority (MAC-Q)	0.28	0.05	0.18	0.38	< .001	Yes	0.11	0.06	-0.00	0.21	0.055	No

8.1.2 Religious Behavior Score → Mediators

The regression of Religious Behavior Score onto each candidate mediator is reported in the main manuscript (Tables 6 and 7). Because the predictor → mediator path is identical regardless of the downstream outcome, those estimates also underlie the Religious Behavior Score → Interest mediation analyses reported below.

8.2 Individual Mediation Analyses

For the individual mediation analyses, candidate mediators were included only if they were significantly associated with the focal predictor (applying the same conservative Bonferroni correction used in the main manuscript: \(p < .05 / 9 = .0056\) in Study 1; \(p < .05 / 10 = .0050\) in Study 2) in either the simple (Model 1) or demographic-adjusted (Model 2) regression models.

8.2.1 Self-Reported Religiosity → Mediator → AI Moral Frequency

Table 14: Study 1: Mediation — Self-Reported Religiosity → Mediator → AI Moral Frequency

	Path a	Path b	Indirect (ab)			Direct c'	Full Model
Mediators	X -> M	M -> Y (given X)	Effect	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	X -> Y (given M)	Proportion Mediated	Selected for SEM
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.26***	1.02***	0.26***	0.16	0.37	0.03	90.54%	Yes
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.22***	0.94***	0.21***	0.11	0.31	0.08	71.31%	No
General Open-Mindedness	0.84**	0.08***	0.07**	0.02	0.13	0.22**	24.65%	Yes
Belief in Moral Objectivity	5.74***	0.00	0.01	-0.03	0.06	0.28***	4.71%	No
Perceived Valence of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.17**	0.61***	0.10**	0.04	0.18	0.19**	35.72%	No
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.21***	0.59***	0.13***	0.06	0.20	0.16*	43.59%	Yes

Table 15: Study 2: Mediation — Self-Reported Religiosity → Mediator → AI Moral Frequency

	Path a	Path b	Indirect (ab)			Direct c'	Full Model
Mediators	X -> M	M -> Y (given X)	Effect	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	X -> Y (given M)	Proportion Mediated	Selected for SEM
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.19***	1.02***	0.19***	0.13	0.26	0.07	72.27%	Yes
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.17***	0.85***	0.15***	0.09	0.21	0.12**	54.83%	No
Belief in Moral Objectivity	0.31***	0.05	0.02	-0.02	0.06	0.25***	6.22%	No
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.14**	0.73***	0.10**	0.04	0.17	0.16***	38.74%	Yes
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.08**	0.82***	0.06**	0.02	0.11	0.20***	24.13%	Yes
Self-Reflective Tendencies	0.60	0.02**	0.01*	0.00	0.03	0.25***	5.47%	No
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.53***	0.08***	0.12***	0.06	0.19	0.15*	45.11%	Yes
Deference to Authority (MAC-Q)	10.42***	0.01***	0.07***	0.03	0.11	0.20***	26.25%	No

8.2.2 Religious Behavior Score → Mediator → AI Moral Interest

Table 16: Study 1: Mediation — Religious Behavior Score → Mediator → AI Moral Interest

	Path a	Path b	Indirect (ab)			Direct c'	Full Model
Mediators	X -> M	M -> Y (given X)	Effect	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	X -> Y (given M)	Proportion Mediated	Selected for SEM
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.26***	0.86***	0.22***	0.16	0.29	0.05	81.64%	Yes
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.21***	0.94***	0.19***	0.12	0.27	0.08	71.46%	No
General Open-Mindedness	1.02***	0.07***	0.07***	0.03	0.11	0.20***	25.65%	Yes
Open-Mindedness on Moral Issues	1.14**	0.03***	0.04**	0.01	0.07	0.23***	14.71%	No
Belief in Moral Objectivity	3.82***	0.00	0.00	-0.03	0.03	0.27***	0.25%	No
Perceived Valence of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.20***	0.64***	0.12***	0.07	0.18	0.15**	46.23%	No
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.21***	0.62***	0.13***	0.08	0.19	0.14**	49.59%	Yes

Table 17: Study 2: Mediation — Religious Behavior Score → Mediator → AI Moral Interest

	Path a	Path b	Indirect (ab)			Direct c'	Full Model
Mediators	X -> M	M -> Y (given X)	Effect	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	X -> Y (given M)	Proportion Mediated	Selected for SEM
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.24***	0.82***	0.20***	0.13	0.26	0.06	77.30%	Yes
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.20***	0.89***	0.18***	0.11	0.24	0.07	70.98%	No
Belief in Moral Objectivity	0.30***	0.10	0.03	-0.01	0.07	0.22***	11.46%	No
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.16**	0.84***	0.13***	0.05	0.21	0.12**	52.76%	Yes
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.12***	0.93***	0.11***	0.06	0.17	0.14**	44.10%	Yes
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.77***	0.08***	0.14***	0.07	0.22	0.11	56.85%	Yes
Deference to Authority (MAC-Q)	13.40***	0.01***	0.10***	0.06	0.16	0.15**	40.22%	No

8.2.3 Self-Reported Religiosity → Mediator → AI Moral Interest

Table 18: Study 1: Mediation — Self-Reported Religiosity → Mediator → AI Moral Interest

	Path a	Path b	Indirect (ab)			Direct c'	Full Model
Mediators	X -> M	M -> Y (given X)	Effect	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	X -> Y (given M)	Proportion Mediated	Selected for SEM
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.26***	0.88***	0.23***	0.14	0.32	0.01	94.04%	Yes
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.22***	0.97***	0.21***	0.12	0.31	0.03	88.26%	No
General Open-Mindedness	0.84**	0.07***	0.06*	0.01	0.12	0.18**	26.31%	Yes
Belief in Moral Objectivity	5.74***	0.00	0.01	-0.03	0.05	0.23**	3.79%	No
Perceived Valence of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.17**	0.67***	0.11**	0.04	0.19	0.13*	47.25%	No
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.21***	0.65***	0.14***	0.06	0.22	0.10	58.19%	Yes

Table 19: Study 2: Mediation — Self-Reported Religiosity → Mediator → AI Moral Interest

	Path a	Path b	Indirect (ab)			Direct c'	Full Model
Mediators	X -> M	M -> Y (given X)	Effect	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	X -> Y (given M)	Proportion Mediated	Selected for SEM
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.19***	0.82***	0.15***	0.10	0.22	0.05	74.37%	Yes
Overall Interest in Seeking Moral Advice	0.17***	0.90***	0.15***	0.09	0.22	0.05	73.98%	No
Belief in Moral Objectivity	0.31***	0.09	0.03	-0.01	0.07	0.18**	14.17%	No
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.14**	0.85***	0.12**	0.04	0.20	0.09*	57.63%	Yes
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.08**	0.94***	0.07**	0.02	0.13	0.13**	35.43%	Yes
Self-Reflective Tendencies	0.60	0.03***	0.02*	0.00	0.04	0.19***	8.46%	No
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.53***	0.08***	0.13***	0.07	0.20	0.08	62.43%	Yes
Deference to Authority (MAC-Q)	10.42***	0.01***	0.08***	0.04	0.13	0.13*	39.04%	No

8.3 Parallel Mediation Analyses

8.3.1 Primary Parallel Mediation Models (Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Frequency)

Below, we present the full parameter estimates for the parallel mediation models predicting the frequency of seeking AI moral advice from the Religious Behavior Score. The path diagrams are presented in the main text.

Table 20: Study 1: Full Parameter Estimates — Parallel Mediation (Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Frequency)

Path	b	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Religious Behavior Score → Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.256	0.369	0.035	0.186	0.325	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → General Open-Mindedness	1.015	0.234	0.237	0.544	1.473	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.215	0.262	0.043	0.130	0.300	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice → AI Moral Frequency	0.842	0.573	0.061	0.722	0.962	<.001
General Open-Mindedness → AI Moral Frequency	0.011	0.047	0.009	-0.007	0.029	0.233
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors → AI Moral Frequency	0.306	0.246	0.057	0.193	0.417	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Frequency (direct)	0.023	0.023	0.041	-0.056	0.102	0.567
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ General Open-Mindedness	4.553	0.423	0.572	3.427	5.690	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.691	0.342	0.117	0.459	0.918	<.001
General Open-Mindedness ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	2.671	0.202	0.712	1.252	4.025	<.001
Indirect via Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.216	0.211	0.034	0.151	0.286	<.001
Indirect via General Open-Mindedness	0.011	0.011	0.010	-0.008	0.032	0.267
Indirect via Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.066	0.064	0.019	0.033	0.107	<.001
Total indirect effect	0.293	0.286	0.042	0.212	0.376	<.001

Table 21: Study 2: Full Parameter Estimates — Parallel Mediation (Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Frequency)

Path	b	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Religious Behavior Score → Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.239	0.367	0.034	0.172	0.305	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.158	0.175	0.048	0.061	0.251	0.001
Religious Behavior Score → Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.120	0.223	0.030	0.061	0.178	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.775	0.535	0.143	1.495	2.055	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice → AI Moral Frequency	0.702	0.422	0.070	0.565	0.845	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors → AI Moral Frequency	0.515	0.431	0.060	0.397	0.633	<.001
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots → AI Moral Frequency	0.095	0.047	0.093	-0.086	0.284	0.305
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2) → AI Moral Frequency	-0.004	-0.011	0.014	-0.031	0.025	0.799
Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Frequency (direct)	0.103	0.096	0.050	0.006	0.201	0.037
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.756	0.355	0.122	0.515	0.990	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.312	0.249	0.075	0.166	0.459	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.292	0.193	0.367	0.587	2.017	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors ~~ Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	1.017	0.552	0.104	0.810	1.214	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	2.058	0.208	0.564	0.931	3.161	<.001
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.398	0.241	0.345	0.726	2.077	<.001
Indirect via Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.167	0.155	0.030	0.112	0.229	<.001
Indirect via Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.081	0.075	0.026	0.031	0.134	0.002
Indirect via Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.011	0.011	0.012	-0.010	0.038	0.339
Indirect via Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	-0.006	-0.006	0.025	-0.055	0.045	0.800
Total indirect effect	0.254	0.235	0.052	0.154	0.357	<.001

8.3.2 Supplementary Parallel Mediation Models

To examine the unique contribution of each mediator while accounting for their intercorrelations, we estimated parallel mediation models for all three supplementary predictor–outcome combinations using structural equation modeling with the lavaan package in R (Rosseel 2012).

For each combination, we applied a three-step selection procedure to choose the final set of mediators, same as in the primary model. First, we restricted candidates to mediators significantly predicted by the predictor under the Bonferroni-corrected threshold (\(p < .05 / 9 = .0056\) in Study 1; \(p < .05 / 10 = .0050\) in Study 2) in either the simple or demographic-adjusted models. Second, we further restricted candidates to those with a significant bootstrap indirect effect (\(a \times b\) path) at \(p < .05\) in the individual mediation analyses. Finally, to minimize multicollinearity and redundancy among multiple mediators within the same conceptual cluster, we selected exactly one representative mediator per cluster. The representative selected was the mediator that accounted for the largest proportion of mediated variance (calculated as \(|a \times b \,/\, \text{total effect}|\)) from the individual mediation bootstrap simulations.

All included mediators in a model were allowed to intercorrelate, and specific indirect effects were estimated using 5,000 bootstrap resamples.

8.3.3 Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Frequency — Path Diagrams

Figure 12: Study 1: Parallel Mediation — Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Frequency

Table 22: Study 1: Full Parameter Estimates — Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Frequency (Parallel Mediation)

Path	b	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Self-Reported Religiosity → Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.256	0.271	0.049	0.161	0.351	<.001
Self-Reported Religiosity → General Open-Mindedness	0.844	0.143	0.329	0.204	1.486	0.010
Self-Reported Religiosity → Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.215	0.193	0.062	0.093	0.336	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice → AI Moral Frequency	0.853	0.580	0.061	0.733	0.972	<.001
General Open-Mindedness → AI Moral Frequency	0.011	0.048	0.009	-0.007	0.029	0.215
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors → AI Moral Frequency	0.310	0.249	0.057	0.196	0.422	<.001
Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Frequency (direct)	-0.005	-0.004	0.053	-0.110	0.097	0.928
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ General Open-Mindedness	5.119	0.451	0.633	3.860	6.335	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.791	0.372	0.124	0.547	1.031	<.001
General Open-Mindedness ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	3.143	0.230	0.729	1.665	4.526	<.001
Indirect via Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.218	0.157	0.045	0.135	0.312	<.001
Indirect via General Open-Mindedness	0.010	0.007	0.009	-0.006	0.030	0.301
Indirect via Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.067	0.048	0.024	0.025	0.120	0.006
Total indirect effect	0.294	0.212	0.057	0.188	0.409	<.001

Figure 13: Study 2: Parallel Mediation — Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Frequency

Table 23: Study 2: Full Parameter Estimates — Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Frequency (Parallel Mediation)

Path	b	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Self-Reported Religiosity → Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.189	0.322	0.032	0.126	0.252	<.001
Self-Reported Religiosity → Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.142	0.174	0.046	0.053	0.233	0.002
Self-Reported Religiosity → Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.078	0.162	0.028	0.025	0.133	0.005
Self-Reported Religiosity → Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.530	0.511	0.133	1.271	1.790	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice → AI Moral Frequency	0.724	0.435	0.070	0.588	0.866	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors → AI Moral Frequency	0.509	0.425	0.061	0.390	0.626	<.001
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots → AI Moral Frequency	0.107	0.053	0.094	-0.076	0.296	0.254
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2) → AI Moral Frequency	0.004	0.013	0.014	-0.023	0.031	0.758
Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Frequency (direct)	0.042	0.043	0.042	-0.042	0.125	0.316
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.775	0.358	0.124	0.527	1.015	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.353	0.274	0.075	0.204	0.502	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.565	0.225	0.366	0.869	2.309	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors ~~ Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	1.038	0.557	0.103	0.830	1.231	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	2.114	0.210	0.574	0.969	3.251	<.001
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.657	0.277	0.354	0.967	2.346	<.001
Indirect via Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.137	0.140	0.028	0.084	0.194	<.001
Indirect via Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.072	0.074	0.025	0.026	0.123	0.003
Indirect via Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.008	0.009	0.009	-0.006	0.028	0.326
Indirect via Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	0.007	0.007	0.021	-0.036	0.049	0.760
Total indirect effect	0.224	0.229	0.047	0.134	0.319	<.001

The Study 1 parallel mediation model explained 54.8% of the variance in frequency of seeking moral advice from AI chatbots (R² = 0.548). The total indirect effect was b = 0.294 (95% CI [0.188, 0.409]), with a residual direct effect of b = -0.005 (p =0.928). In Study 2, the model explained 58.7% of the variance (R² = 0.587), with a total indirect effect of b = 0.224 (95% CI [0.134, 0.319]) and a direct effect of b = 0.042 (p =0.316).

8.3.4 Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Interest — Path Diagrams

Figure 14: Study 1: Parallel Mediation — Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Interest

Table 24: Study 1: Full Parameter Estimates — Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Interest (Parallel Mediation)

Path	b	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Religious Behavior Score → Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.256	0.369	0.035	0.186	0.325	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → General Open-Mindedness	1.015	0.234	0.238	0.546	1.476	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.215	0.262	0.043	0.130	0.300	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice → AI Moral Interest	0.651	0.461	0.066	0.522	0.780	<.001
General Open-Mindedness → AI Moral Interest	0.010	0.043	0.009	-0.008	0.028	0.302
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors → AI Moral Interest	0.431	0.361	0.053	0.328	0.535	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Interest (direct)	0.000	0.000	0.039	-0.077	0.077	0.992
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ General Open-Mindedness	4.553	0.423	0.572	3.424	5.690	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.691	0.342	0.117	0.460	0.919	<.001
General Open-Mindedness ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	2.671	0.202	0.711	1.252	4.022	<.001
Indirect via Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.167	0.170	0.029	0.114	0.229	<.001
Indirect via General Open-Mindedness	0.010	0.010	0.010	-0.008	0.033	0.344
Indirect via Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.093	0.094	0.022	0.054	0.140	<.001
Total indirect effect	0.270	0.275	0.038	0.197	0.345	<.001

Figure 15: Study 2: Parallel Mediation — Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Interest

Table 25: Study 2: Full Parameter Estimates — Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Interest (Parallel Mediation)

Path	b	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Religious Behavior Score → Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.239	0.367	0.034	0.172	0.305	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.158	0.175	0.048	0.061	0.251	0.001
Religious Behavior Score → Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.120	0.223	0.030	0.061	0.177	<.001
Religious Behavior Score → Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.775	0.535	0.143	1.495	2.054	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice → AI Moral Interest	0.416	0.251	0.070	0.283	0.553	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors → AI Moral Interest	0.686	0.574	0.061	0.560	0.803	<.001
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots → AI Moral Interest	0.151	0.075	0.095	-0.026	0.348	0.113
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2) → AI Moral Interest	0.011	0.035	0.015	-0.016	0.040	0.439
Religious Behavior Score → AI Moral Interest (direct)	0.006	0.006	0.046	-0.085	0.095	0.889
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.756	0.355	0.121	0.516	0.990	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.312	0.249	0.075	0.166	0.460	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.292	0.193	0.368	0.588	2.020	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors ~~ Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	1.017	0.552	0.104	0.810	1.216	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	2.058	0.208	0.565	0.931	3.166	<.001
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.398	0.241	0.345	0.725	2.079	<.001
Indirect via Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.099	0.092	0.022	0.059	0.147	<.001
Indirect via Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.108	0.100	0.034	0.042	0.175	0.001
Indirect via Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.018	0.017	0.012	-0.003	0.046	0.148
Indirect via Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	0.020	0.019	0.026	-0.029	0.073	0.444
Total indirect effect	0.246	0.228	0.052	0.144	0.347	<.001

The Study 1 parallel mediation model explained 50.6% of the variance in interest in seeking moral advice from AI chatbots (R² = 0.506). The total indirect effect was b = 0.27 (95% CI [0.197, 0.345]), with a residual direct effect of b = 0 (p =0.992). In Study 2, the model explained 59.3% of the variance (R² = 0.593), with a total indirect effect of b = 0.246 (95% CI [0.144, 0.347]) and a direct effect of b = 0.006 (p =0.889).

8.3.5 Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Interest — Path Diagrams

Figure 16: Study 1: Parallel Mediation — Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Interest

Table 26: Study 1: Full Parameter Estimates — Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Interest (Parallel Mediation)

Path	b	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Self-Reported Religiosity → Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.256	0.271	0.049	0.160	0.350	<.001
Self-Reported Religiosity → General Open-Mindedness	0.844	0.143	0.328	0.204	1.485	0.010
Self-Reported Religiosity → Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.215	0.193	0.062	0.094	0.336	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice → AI Moral Interest	0.659	0.467	0.066	0.532	0.789	<.001
General Open-Mindedness → AI Moral Interest	0.010	0.044	0.009	-0.008	0.029	0.296
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors → AI Moral Interest	0.434	0.363	0.053	0.330	0.538	<.001
Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Interest (direct)	-0.030	-0.023	0.050	-0.129	0.066	0.548
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ General Open-Mindedness	5.119	0.451	0.635	3.860	6.338	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.791	0.372	0.124	0.547	1.031	<.001
General Open-Mindedness ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	3.143	0.230	0.729	1.666	4.532	<.001
Indirect via Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.168	0.126	0.037	0.102	0.245	<.001
Indirect via General Open-Mindedness	0.008	0.006	0.009	-0.006	0.031	0.380
Indirect via Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.093	0.070	0.030	0.040	0.155	0.002
Total indirect effect	0.270	0.203	0.054	0.169	0.375	<.001

Figure 17: Study 2: Parallel Mediation — Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Interest

Table 27: Study 2: Full Parameter Estimates — Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Interest (Parallel Mediation)

Path	b	β	SE	95% CI LL	95% CI UL	p
Self-Reported Religiosity → Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.189	0.322	0.032	0.126	0.252	<.001
Self-Reported Religiosity → Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.142	0.174	0.046	0.053	0.233	0.002
Self-Reported Religiosity → Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.078	0.162	0.028	0.025	0.133	0.005
Self-Reported Religiosity → Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.530	0.511	0.133	1.269	1.790	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice → AI Moral Interest	0.418	0.252	0.068	0.286	0.550	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors → AI Moral Interest	0.685	0.574	0.061	0.560	0.800	<.001
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots → AI Moral Interest	0.152	0.075	0.096	-0.027	0.350	0.113
Deference to Authority (MFQ-2) → AI Moral Interest	0.012	0.037	0.014	-0.015	0.039	0.394
Self-Reported Religiosity → AI Moral Interest (direct)	0.002	0.002	0.037	-0.071	0.072	0.953
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.775	0.358	0.124	0.527	1.016	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.353	0.274	0.075	0.205	0.503	<.001
Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.565	0.225	0.366	0.868	2.307	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors ~~ Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	1.038	0.557	0.103	0.831	1.232	<.001
Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	2.114	0.210	0.573	0.970	3.251	<.001
Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots ~~ Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	1.657	0.277	0.354	0.978	2.346	<.001
Indirect via Overall Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice	0.079	0.081	0.019	0.045	0.122	<.001
Indirect via Perceived Authority of AI Chatbots as Moral Advisors	0.097	0.100	0.032	0.036	0.162	0.003
Indirect via Tendency to Anthropomorphize AI Chatbots	0.012	0.012	0.009	-0.002	0.034	0.186
Indirect via Deference to Authority (MFQ-2)	0.018	0.019	0.022	-0.022	0.061	0.401
Total indirect effect	0.206	0.212	0.047	0.115	0.297	<.001

The Study 1 parallel mediation model explained 50.7% of the variance in interest in seeking moral advice from AI chatbots (R² = 0.507). The total indirect effect was b = 0.27 (95% CI [0.169, 0.375]), with a residual direct effect of b = -0.03 (p =0.548). In Study 2, the model explained 59.3% of the variance (R² = 0.593), with a total indirect effect of b = 0.206 (95% CI [0.115, 0.297]) and a direct effect of b = 0.002 (p =0.953).

9 Moderation Analyses

The main body (Question 4) tested whether access to moral advice sources moderates the Religious Behavior Score → frequency relationship. Here we report supplementary moderation analyses for three additional predictor–outcome combinations: Self-Reported Religiosity → Frequency, Religious Behavior Score → Interest, and Self-Reported Religiosity → Interest. For each, we test both AI chatbot access and overall access to non-AI sources as moderators (Study 2 only).

9.1 Self-Reported Religiosity × Access → AI Moral Frequency

Table 28: Supplementary Moderation: Self-Reported Religiosity × Access → Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots

Parameter	b	SE	t	p
Model: Model 1: Moderator = AI Chatbot Access
Constant	0.29	0.65	0.45	0.652
Self-Reported Religiosity (X)	0.13	0.20	0.65	0.515
AI Chatbot Access (W)	0.36	0.11	3.23	0.001
X × W	0.01	0.03	0.40	0.686
Model: Model 2: Moderator = Overall Source Access
Constant	1.61	0.92	1.76	0.079
Self-Reported Religiosity (X)	-0.19	0.29	-0.66	0.511
Overall Source Access (W)	0.15	0.20	0.77	0.443
X × W	0.08	0.06	1.45	0.149
Model 1: R² = 0.151, Adj. R² = 0.143, F(3, 343) = 20.30, p <.001. Model 2: R² = 0.103, Adj. R² = 0.095, F(3, 343) = 13.14, p <.001. Study 2 only. (N = 348).

Figure 18: Self-Reported Religiosity → Frequency of Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots, Moderated by Access

AI chatbot access did not significantly moderate the Self-Reported Religiosity → frequency relationship (b = 0.01, t(343) = 0.4, p =0.686). Overall access to non-AI sources did not significantly moderate this relationship (b = 0.08, t(343) = 1.45, p =0.149).

9.2 Religious Behavior Score × Access → AI Moral Interest

Table 29: Supplementary Moderation: Religious Behavior Score × Access → Interest in Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots

Parameter	b	SE	t	p
Model: Model 1: Moderator = AI Chatbot Access
Constant	0.81	0.72	1.13	0.258
Religious Behavior Score (X)	-0.05	0.21	-0.24	0.814
AI Chatbot Access (W)	0.32	0.12	2.57	0.011
X × W	0.04	0.04	1.19	0.234
Model: Model 2: Moderator = Overall Source Access
Constant	2.08	1.00	2.08	0.038
Religious Behavior Score (X)	-0.39	0.31	-1.26	0.209
Overall Source Access (W)	0.12	0.21	0.54	0.590
X × W	0.12	0.06	1.92	0.056
Model 1: R² = 0.153, Adj. R² = 0.146, F(3, 343) = 20.72, p <.001. Model 2: R² = 0.100, Adj. R² = 0.092, F(3, 343) = 12.68, p <.001. Study 2 only. (N = 348).

Figure 19: Religious Behavior Score → Interest in Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots, Moderated by Access

AI chatbot access did not significantly moderate the Religious Behavior Score → interest relationship (b = 0.04, t(343) = 1.19, p =0.234). Overall access to non-AI sources did not significantly moderate this relationship (b = 0.12, t(343) = 1.92, p =0.056).

9.3 Self-Reported Religiosity × Access → AI Moral Interest

Table 30: Supplementary Moderation: Self-Reported Religiosity × Access → Interest in Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots

Parameter	b	SE	t	p
Model: Model 1: Moderator = AI Chatbot Access
Constant	0.64	0.65	0.99	0.322
Self-Reported Religiosity (X)	0.02	0.21	0.08	0.938
AI Chatbot Access (W)	0.38	0.11	3.41	<.001
X × W	0.02	0.03	0.67	0.501
Model: Model 2: Moderator = Overall Source Access
Constant	1.80	0.92	1.95	0.052
Self-Reported Religiosity (X)	-0.30	0.29	-1.05	0.294
Overall Source Access (W)	0.22	0.20	1.09	0.276
X × W	0.09	0.06	1.60	0.111
Model 1: R² = 0.142, Adj. R² = 0.134, F(3, 343) = 18.88, p <.001. Model 2: R² = 0.089, Adj. R² = 0.081, F(3, 343) = 11.13, p <.001. Study 2 only. (N = 348).

Figure 20: Self-Reported Religiosity → Interest in Seeking Moral Advice From AI Chatbots, Moderated by Access

AI chatbot access did not significantly moderate the Self-Reported Religiosity → interest relationship (b = 0.02, t(343) = 0.67, p =0.501). Overall access to non-AI sources did not significantly moderate this relationship (b = 0.09, t(343) = 1.6, p =0.111).

References

Rosseel, Yves. 2012. “Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of Statistical Software 48 (2): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.