Predestiny
The Higher Power of Religiosity Over Personality on Political Ideology
Aleksander Ksiazkiewicz & Amanda Friesen
Political Behavior, forthcoming
Abstract:
Two streams of research, culture war and system justification, have proposed that religious orientations and personality, respectively, play critical roles in political orientations. There has been only limited work integrating these two streams. This integration is now of increased importance given the introduction of behavior-genetic frameworks into our understanding of why people differ politically. Extant research has largely considered the influence of personality as heritable and religiosity as social, but this view needs reconsideration as religiosity is also genetically influenced. Here we integrate these domains and conduct multivariate analyses on twin samples in the U.S. and Australia to identify the relative importance of genetic, environmental, and cultural influences. First, we find that religiosity’s role on political attitudes is more heritable than social. Second, religiosity accounts for more genetic influence on political attitudes than personality. When including religiosity, personality’s influence is greatly reduced. Our results suggest religion scholars and political psychologists are partially correct in their assessment of the “culture wars” — religiosity and ideology are closely linked, but their connection is grounded in genetic predispositions.
Why did pre-modern states adopt Big-God religions?
Stergios Skaperdas & Samarth Vaidya
Public Choice, forthcoming
Abstract:
Over the past two millennia successful pre-modern states in Eurasia adopted and cultivated Big-God religions that emphasize (i) the ruler’s legitimacy as divinely ordained and (ii) a morality adapted for large-scale societies that can have positive economic effects. We make sense of that development by building on previous research that has conceptualized pre-modern states as maximizing the ruler’s profit. We model the interaction of rulers and subjects who have both material and psychological payoffs, the latter emanating from religious identity. Overall, religion reduces the cost of controlling subjects through the threat of violence, increases production, increases tax revenue, and reduces banditry. A Big-God ruler, who also is a believer, has stronger incentives to invest in expanding the number of believers and the intensity of belief, as well as investing in state capacity. Furthermore, such investments often are complementary, mutually reinforcing one another, thus leading to an evolutionary advantage for rulers that adopted Big-God religions.
Effects of Church-Based Parent–Child Abstinence-Only Interventions on Adolescents' Sexual Behaviors
Loretta Jemmott et al.
Journal of Adolescent Health, forthcoming
Methods: Randomized controlled trial recruiting 613 African American parent–adolescent dyads from urban African American Baptist churches and randomizing them to one of three parent–child interventions: faith-based abstinence-only intervention emphasizing delaying or reducing sexual intercourse drawing on Biblical scriptures; nonfaith-based abstinence-only emphasizing intervention delaying or reducing sexual intercourse without referencing scriptures; or attention-matched control intervention targeting health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Primary outcome was the self-reported frequency of condomless sexual intercourse in the past 3 months assessed periodically through 18 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes were frequency of sexual intercourse, number of sexual partners, consistent condom use and, among sexually inexperienced adolescents, sexual debut.
Results: Generalized estimating equations analyses revealed that nonfaith-based abstinence-only intervention reduced the frequency of condomless sexual intercourse, frequency of sexual intercourse, and number of sexual partners compared with the attention-matched control intervention, whereas faith-based abstinence-only intervention did not. Neither intervention affected consistent condom use or sexual debut.
Distrust persists after subverting atheist stereotypes
Richard Grove, Ayla Rubenstein & Heather Terrell
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, forthcoming
Abstract:
Antiatheist prejudice appears to be common. This prejudice may stem from distrust. However, the factors influencing distrust are not fully understood. The current research identified common stereotypes about atheists, tested the intuitiveness of those stereotypes, and determined whether distrust toward atheists depends more on the label “atheist” or the attributes atheists are thought to possess. Study 1 (N = 100) and Study 2 (N = 149) identified several attributes thought to be most characteristic of atheists and least characteristic of Christians (or vice versa). Study 3 (N = 219) demonstrated that atheists and Christians are intuitively associated with the respective traits identified in Studies 1 and 2. Study 4 (N = 274) and Study 5 (N = 259) used fake social media profiles to manipulate target religious identification (atheist, Christian, or unspecified) and attributes (stereotypically atheist or stereotypically Christian) to determine the effect on trust ratings. Overall, the results of these studies indicate that atheists and Christians are explicitly and implicitly associated with different attributes and that, even when atheists possess stereotypically Christian attributes, Christians trust atheists significantly less than other Christians. These findings suggest that antiatheist prejudice is relatively insensitive to individual differences of the target.
Science, God, and the cosmos: Science both erodes (via logic) and promotes (via awe) belief in God
Kathryn Johnson et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Science and analytical thinking have been linked with atheism. We propose dual pathways whereby scientific engagement may have paradoxical effects on belief in God. Logical aspects of science, associated with analytical thinking, are associated with unbelief. However, people can also be awed by scientific information, and awe is associated with feelings of self-transcendence and belief in a mystical God. An exploratory study (supplemental material; N = 322) and Study 1 (N = 490) demonstrated that people interested in science often hold abstract (but not personal) representations of God. This effect was mediated by a predisposition to feel awe. In Studies 2 and 3 (combined N = 570), people experimentally exposed to awe-inspiring scientific content were more likely than control participants to endorse abstract God representations. These findings suggest that scientific engagement does not always erode belief in God. Instead, science-inspired awe can increase representations of God as a mystical cosmic force or as being beyond imagination.
Personal Liberties, Religiosity, and Effort
Joan Esteban, Gilat Levy & Laura Mayoral
European Economic Review, forthcoming
Abstract:
In this paper we study the role of religiosity in influencing the choice of labor effort. Many religions promote restrictions on personal liberties such as divorce, abortion, gender parity, or gay marriage, often regulated by law. We assume that the higher the degree of religiosity of an individual, the less he enjoys such personal liberties, and the less he likes to be in a society which allows them, while seculars enjoy such liberties. By standard consumer theory, the differential valuation induced by religiosity influences individual decisions on other dimensions as well, notably labour supply. We show empirically that this nexus holds and that the size of the effect is large. Specifically, we construct an index of personal liberties and find solid evidence in support of the joint effect of religiosity and liberties on labor effort. Our empirical results indicate that religiosity interacted with the legal level of liberties has a significant and strong negative effect on labor supply and that increases in the cap on liberties have a negative effect on the labor supply of the religious individuals and positive for the secular.
African, Religious, and Tolerant? How Religious Diversity Shapes Attitudes Toward Sexual Minorities in Africa
Sarah Dreier, James Long & Stephen Winkler
Politics and Religion, forthcoming
Abstract:
Despite trends towards greater LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) rights in industrialized democracies, the rights of sexual minorities have become increasingly politicized and restricted throughout Africa. Recognizing religion's central role in shaping attitudes toward gays and lesbians, we hypothesize that local religious diversity could expose individuals to alternative religious perspectives, engender tolerance toward marginalized communities, and therefore dislodge dogmatic beliefs about social issues. Employing cross-national Afrobarometer survey data from 33 countries with an index of district-level religious concentration, we find that respondents living in religiously pluralistic communities are 4–5 points more likely to express tolerance of homosexual neighbors (50% increase) compared to those in homogeneous locales. This effect is not driven by outlier countries, the existence of specific religious affiliations within diverse communities, respondents' religiosity, or other observable and latent factors at the country, sub-national, district, and individual level. Further robustness checks address potential threats to validity. We conclude that religious diversity can foster inclusion of sexual minorities in Africa.
Exploring the boundaries of societally acceptable bias expression toward Muslim and atheist defendants in four mock-juror experiments
Monica Miller, Jordan Clark & Mauricio Alvarez
Social Science Journal, forthcoming
Abstract:
Religious minorities have experienced bias in many domains including the criminal justice system. The Normative Window of prejudice model posits that some bias expression is societally acceptable, while other bias expression is unacceptable and thus suppressed. Four mock-juror studies test the boundaries of normative expression of bias toward religious minorities. Participants expressed bias against (i.e., prejudice) Muslim defendants who commit violence motivated by religion (Study 1), yet also expressed bias toward (i.e., favoritism) Muslim defendants who commit violence in response to being attacked because of their religion (Study 2). Motive thus might determine whether bias expression is acceptable. Alternative explanations (religious activism; intentionality) are eliminated (Studies 3, 4). Results did not generalize to atheist defendants, who experienced little bias. Generally, Christian participants were more punitive than non-Christians, but there was little evidence of ingroup bias. These studies contribute to theory and literature by defining the circumstances that justify the expression of anti-Muslim bias. We conclude by suggesting that there are indeed societal norms regarding prejudice against religious minorities in the criminal justice system.
Shouldering Moral Responsibility: The Division of Moral Labor among Pregnant Women, Rabbis, and Doctors
Tsipy Ivry & Elly Teman
American Anthropologist, forthcoming
Abstract:
This article contributes to the anthropology of morality through an ethnographic focus on the consultations of religiously observant Jews with rabbis and medical specialists regarding dilemmas surrounding prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies. Our ethnography looks at religious couples who consult rabbinic authorities on their reproductive dilemmas rather than making autonomous decisions and the procedures of decision‐making that rabbis enact. We examine the rabbis’ emic practice of dividing moral labor and outsourcing it in a chain reaction to various medical and rabbinic experts. The purpose of outsourcing moral decisions and aggregating expert opinions is to lighten the heavy weight of moral responsibility for consultees as well as for the rabbinic consultants. In seeking expert consultations, people might actually be opting for liberation from freedom of choice — at least as defined in the model of autonomous decision‐making — rather than merely submitting to an authoritative doctrinarian power, whether of religion or biomedicine.