Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Epiphenom

Home
About

Home
Nonreligious
Religious situations, but not beliefs, help foster trust

Religious situations, but not beliefs, help foster trust

Last updated on: November 13, 2014 at 11:11 pm by Epiphenom

Religious situations, but not beliefs, help foster trust 2014-11-13T23:11:02+01:00 Epiphenom

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

[Update: I fired a couple of questions to Shariff about this paper – you can read his response here]

In this week’s Science Magazine there’s a review of the prosocial effects of religion from an evolutionary perspective. It’s pretty radical for a journal like Science to carry this kind of review, and a few the newspapers have picked up on it too – The Guardian (Religion helps foster trust, say psychologists) and the Daily Mail (Religious people are ‘more helpful, honest and generous’ say scientists), for example. Perhaps surprisingly, the newspapers get it broadly right. But there’s some nuances there that really need to be clarified, and also what’s not clear from the reports is that there is a wild leap of logic in the hypothesis presented in the review – a leap of faith, if you will. So, what does it actually say?

The authors are Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who have conducted some key studies in understanding religiosity (see this earlier blog post).

An important part of their review is exploding a few persistent myths about the actual effect religiosity has on proscocial behaviour. First off, it doesn’t make you kinder or more empathic. Religion does not, in fact, stimulate people to help their fellow humans. As an example of this, they give the classic 1973 experiment in which students passed by a person appearing to be sick and in need of assistance. It was an anonymous set-up – as far as the students knew, no-one would ever know what they did. And religiosity had no effect on whether they offered help.

More evidence comes from a study on volunteering. When participants were lead to believe that they were unlikely to be called upon to do anything if they volunteered, then there was a big difference in favour of the religious. When participants were lead to believe they probably would be asked to actually do something, the difference disappeared. In other words, religion appears to increase your concern about how you appear to others, but doesn’t make you any more altruistic.

Another thing: self-reports of religiosity are also no guide to actual behaviour. Religious people are more likely to claim that they are honest than non-religious people, but when you study them it turns out that there is no difference. This is largely because religious people are have convinced themselves that they are nice (they are religious, after all), and so that’s what they’ll tell you if asked:

Psychologists have long known that self-reports of socially desirable behaviors (such as charitability) may not be accurate, reflecting instead impression management or self-deception … Supporting this hypothesis, psychological research summarizing many studies has found that measures of religiosity are positively associated with tests of socially desirable responding, a common human tendency to project an overly positive image of oneself in evaluative contexts.

The evidence for this comes from lab studies, such as that Norenzayan & Shariff’s own work as well as the one by Randolph-Seng and Nielsen. In these lab studies, when unprompted by any cues, religious people are just as likely to cheat and play nasty as are the non-religious.

So what then does religion do that inspired those headlines? Norenzayan & Shariff reckon that the primary effect of religion is to foster trust within groups:

One possibility holds that the greater prosociality of the religious is driven by an empathic motive to ameliorate the condition of others. Alternatively, prosocial behavior could be driven by egoistic motives, such as projecting a prosocial image or avoiding guilt (failing to live up to one’s prosocial self-image). The preponderance of the evidence supports the latter explanation.

The evidence for this? Well, when you prime people with religious prompts, they behave more honestly. They argue on these grounds that religiosity equates to trust and that, if you can spot individuals who are religious, then that might be a really handy way of identifying people that you can trust.

The big problem here, and one that they acknowledge, is that it’s easy to fake it. It’s easy to act religious and yet have no strong religious beliefs. And this is where the bizarre rituals demanded by religion come in. Perhaps these are so costly that it’s simply not worth faking them. In fact, so the argument goes, those religions that demand the most costly rituals indicate the most trustworthy individuals. As evidence, they cite a study showing that religious communes in 19th century America survived for longer than secular ones, and what’s more those religious communes that had the most arduous demands were the ones that lasted longest (Sosis and Bressler, 2003). What’s more there was no relationship between behavioural commitment and longevity in the secular communes – although the strength of this conclusion is somewhat weakened by the fact that the secular communes generally required less commitment (they were less bonkers).

In other words, this is the green beard argument. Religious ritual isn’t beneficial in itself, but it acts as a marker of trustworthy individuals. But really the problems with this line of argument are immense.

Firstly, the lab studies show that it isn’t self belief about religiosity that drives pro-social behaviour, but religious primes in the environment. What’s more, they show that secular primes work just as well as religious ones, and that religious primes work just as well for non-believers as they do for believers. It’s not religiosity that triggers pro-social behaviour, but rather reminding people that they ought to be nice. So it’s religious environments that can increase trust, not religious beliefs. And so behaviour that indicates your religious belief cannot be a marker of trustworthiness.

Then too, costly signals decrease the net benefit for freeloaders, but they decrease the net benefit for believers just as much. The only way the signal theory could work is if there is a some kind signal that freeloaders cannot fake. And anyone who’s watched a telly evangelist in action knows that this simply is not true.

Nevertheless, the Sosis and Bressler study did show that there is something special about strict religions. But this study was looking at small communities which are inherently different from the wider world. The real-world implications are unclear.

So did religion develop as a way of increasing in-group trust? Well perhaps. But it only does so under a few restricted circumstances. The authors conclude:

The preponderance of the evidence points to religious prosociality being a bounded phenomenon. Religion’s association with prosociality is most evident when the situation calls for maintaining a favorable social reputation within the ingroup. When thoughts of morally concerned deities are cognitively salient, an objectively anonymous situation becomes nonanonymous and, therefore, reputationally relevant, or alternatively, such thoughts activate prosocial tendencies because
of a prior mental association. This could occur when such thoughts are induced experimentally or in naturalistic religious situations, such as when people attend religious services or engage in ritual performance. This explains why the religious situation is more important than the religious disposition in predicting prosocial behavior.

On a final note, they point out that although this effect may have had evolutionary advantages, the meaningfulness to the modern world is unclear. For example, they note that active members of modern secular organizations are at least as likely to donate to charity as active members of religious ones. And remember that secular primes had as much effect on honesty as religious ones…

And here’s the real issue for humanists. The question is not whether religion leads to better individuals, but whether it leads to better societies. If religion fosters trust, then why is it that the countries with the lowest levels of religion also have the lowest levels of corruption? Maybe religion helped our neolithic ancestors to stick together in the face of adversity, but has pretty much outlived its usefulness now.

References

A. Norenzayan, A. F. Shariff (2008). The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality Science, 322 (5898), 58-62 DOI: 10.1126/science.1158757

Richard Sosis, Eric R. Bressler (2003). Cooperation and Commune Longevity: A Test of the Costly Signaling Theory of Religion Cross-Cultural Research, 37 (2), 211-239 DOI: 10.1177/1069397103037002003

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 6, 2008

British Atheist Blogs

Next Post

October 9, 2008 Reasons to fear humanism: conservatives and liberals disagree

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Causes of religion - evolution Causes of religion - psychological Causes of religion - social Demographics Digest Effects of religion - health Effects of religion - psychological Effects of religion - social Notifications Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What Christian group emphasizes "The Inner Light" as guidance from God?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Methodists Baptists Pentecostals Quakers