4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prosociality and religion.

      1 , 2 , 2
      Current opinion in psychology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Although self-reports suggest that religious individuals consider themselves universally prosocial, behavioral measures suggest a more limited prosociality and priming studies suggest a small causal relationship. Recent research has uncovered new moderators, with religiousness being more strongly related to prosociality under self-image threat, and when faced with a needier recipient. One major moderator remains the identity of the recipient: religious prosociality often favors religious ingroups over outgroups. Mechanisms of religious prosociality include supernatural monitoring and moral identity, with secular analogues such as priming civic institutions also having comparable effects. Further research is needed on determinants of parochial versus universal religious helping, and the circumstances under which each type of helping might be most adaptive.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Curr Opin Psychol
          Current opinion in psychology
          Elsevier BV
          2352-2518
          2352-250X
          August 2021
          : 40
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Baylor University, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, One Bear Pl. #97334, Waco, TX, 76798-7334, United States. Electronic address: JoAnn_Tsang@Baylor.edu.
          [2 ] Baylor University, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, One Bear Pl. #97334, Waco, TX, 76798-7334, United States.
          Article
          S2352-250X(20)30178-0
          10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.025
          33022519
          68cc6cc8-5174-4eb7-b7bd-94a857717226
          Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article