31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Moralizing gods, impartiality and religious parochialism across 15 societies

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          The emergence of large-scale cooperation during the Holocene remains a central problem in the evolutionary literature. One hypothesis points to culturally evolved beliefs in punishing, interventionist gods that facilitate the extension of cooperative behaviour toward geographically distant co-religionists. Furthermore, another hypothesis points to such mechanisms being constrained to the religious ingroup, possibly at the expense of religious outgroups. To test these hypotheses, we administered two behavioural experiments and a set of interviews to a sample of 2228 participants from 15 diverse populations. These populations included foragers, pastoralists, horticulturalists, and wage labourers, practicing Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism, but also forms of animism and ancestor worship. Using the Random Allocation Game (RAG) and the Dictator Game (DG) in which individuals allocated money between themselves, local and geographically distant co-religionists, and religious outgroups, we found that higher ratings of gods as monitoring and punishing predicted decreased local favouritism (RAGs) and increased resource-sharing with distant co-religionists (DGs). The effects of punishing and monitoring gods on outgroup allocations revealed between-site variability, suggesting that in the absence of intergroup hostility, moralizing gods may be implicated in cooperative behaviour toward outgroups. These results provide support for the hypothesis that beliefs in monitoring and punitive gods help expand the circle of sustainable social interaction, and open questions about the treatment of religious outgroups.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The coevolution of parochial altruism and war.

          Altruism-benefiting fellow group members at a cost to oneself-and parochialism-hostility toward individuals not of one's own ethnic, racial, or other group-are common human behaviors. The intersection of the two-which we term "parochial altruism"-is puzzling from an evolutionary perspective because altruistic or parochial behavior reduces one's payoffs by comparison to what one would gain by eschewing these behaviors. But parochial altruism could have evolved if parochialism promoted intergroup hostilities and the combination of altruism and parochialism contributed to success in these conflicts. Our game-theoretic analysis and agent-based simulations show that under conditions likely to have been experienced by late Pleistocene and early Holocene humans, neither parochialism nor altruism would have been viable singly, but by promoting group conflict, they could have evolved jointly.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Global Evidence on Economic Preferences*

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The cultural evolution of prosocial religions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
                Proc. R. Soc. B
                The Royal Society
                0962-8452
                1471-2954
                March 13 2019
                March 13 2019
                : 286
                : 1898
                : 20190202
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
                [2 ]LEVYNA: Laboratory for the Experimental Research of Religion, Masaryk University, Brno 602 00, Czech Republic
                [3 ]Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig 04103, Germany
                [4 ]Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 6241, USA
                [5 ]Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
                [6 ]Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena 07745, Germany
                [7 ]Social Science Sub-Division, College of DuPage, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137, USA
                [8 ]School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PE, UK
                [9 ]Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PE, UK
                [10 ]Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 4101, USA
                [11 ]Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
                [12 ]School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
                [13 ]Department of Anthropology, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
                [14 ]Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA
                [15 ]Department of Anthropology, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA
                [16 ]Department of Economics and Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
                [17 ]Centre for Culture and Evolution, Brunel University London, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK
                [18 ]Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
                [19 ]Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
                Article
                10.1098/rspb.2019.0202
                6458319
                30836871
                e959aa00-427d-4b07-9db4-0a648378f584
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article