Alexandra Macpherson

Christopher Friend
ARR ENC 1102
22 November 2013
Prosocial Behavior From Religious Literacies
Introduction
With 84% of the world being religiously affiliated, aiming to understand how 5.8
billion peoples cognitive thinking is affected and the effect of their subsequent behavior
is worth exploring. The population of the world that identifies themselves as religious
would have had many different kinds of influence of religious literacies. These literacies
include institutionalized education (such as schools with a certain religious
denomination), church/temple, home education from parents or guardians, religious texts,
etc. Through these different mediums of literacy, ones religious affiliation is formed
whether it be from family traditions or personal religious exploration. Many of those who
are non-religious also have been exposed to such literacies, but their reasons for nonaffiliation are not relevant to this particular study. My research is then focused to asking
the question: How does the presence or absence of religious literacies shape prosocial
behavior or ethical thinking?
Previous research has been conducted and results have shown that the effects of
religion and God concepts do increase prosociality among individuals. Prosociality is
defined as voluntary behavior intended to benefit another. Azim F. Shariff and Ara
Norenzayan, professors in the department of psychology at the University of British
Columbia, conducted a research article called God is Watching You. These two professors
set up two experiments to determine whether the influence of a God concept would
increase cooperative behavior among unrelated individuals. The participants played The
Dictator Game where they were in charge of allocating money for themselves and
giving the rest away to strangers. One group was subconsciously primed with God
concepts by using Srull and Wyers scrambled sentence paradigm and the other was not.
They found that those who were primed with words like spirit, divine, God, and sacred
gave away more money than those who were not. They came to the conclusion that the
subconscious presence of a supernatural agent watching the subjects, led them to more
prosocial behavior. However, examining these findings deeper they discovered that,
...when studies demonstrate that helpfulness is higher among more devoted people, this
nding is typically better explained by egoistic motives such as seeking praise or
avoiding guilt, rather than by higher levels of compassion or by a stronger motivation to
benet other people (Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007). In other words, those who exhibited
more cooperation and unselfish behavior were doing so for themselves, not simply just
for the sole benefit of the other individual.
The notion of Shariffs and Norenzayans statement about compassion leads to
the next study about prosociality, Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less
Religious Individuals written by Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg, Paul
K. Piff, Katharine Clark, Dacher Keltner, and Sarina R. Saturn. Knowing that religion is
linked to higher levels of prosociality they were left with question, What explains the
generosity of less religious individuals? These researchers found that although
religiosity may predict increased prosociality, nonreligious individuals do demonstrate
high levels of prosociality and endorsement of ethical attitudes. Three experiments were

conducted to test what it was that led the less religious to act prosocially and in all studies
it was found that compassion for others was the driving force to act selflessly. They came
to the conclusion that prosociality in non-religious individuals is driven more by
compassion than those who are religious with the concept of an omniscient, supernatural
agent.
In addition to these studies, another experiment was conducted by Jesse Lee
Preston and Ryan S. Ritter. They conducted a study similar to Azim F. Shariffs
experiment to test prosociality associated with religion. The difference in this study,
however, tested the levels of prosociality between concepts of religion and God, making
them two separate entities. Initially they state that any concept of a sacred being increases
prosociality but, orientations toward the sacred can have different influences on
morality (Preston & Ritter, 2012). They explain that, religion may be more closely
related to the affiliative aspects of religious practice, whereas God may be associated
with personal belief. This is the notion that religion promotes prosociality within the ingroup and God promotes prosociality more so in an out-group setting. Three studies were
conducted, one established that God serves as a moral audience, the second and third
established that there is a difference in prosociality between God and religion. In all three
studies, subjects were primed with either God concepts, religious concepts, and a control
group. In one where they primed a participant with religion concepts they found that,
Christians, subsequently, report more negative attitudes toward atheists and Muslims in
relation to Christians. They concluded, the current studies demonstrate that thoughts of
God promote prosocial behavior toward those whom God wants us to help (in this case,
the religious outgroup), which can sometimes be in opposition to the prosocial goals of
the religious ingroup. This study proved that religion and god demonstrate two
different and distinct attitudes concerning religious cognition. Religion primes increased
cooperation among those alike in an ingroup and god primes increased cooperation
among those who are unaffiliated with each other, an outgroup.
My research further explores the effects of religion and God concepts on
prosociality, however my study aims to explore whether or not the medium of religious
literacies is relevant to ethical thinking and prosocial behavior. Through surveying
college students at the University of Central Florida I was able to confirm findings from
secondary research that religious concepts do in fact promote prosociality and that the
way that students were raised in religious/non-religious environments affects their
cognitive thinking. I plan to distinguish the differences in behavior between those people
who have been exposed to religious literacies such as home education, church or temple,
institutionalized religious education, personal exploration, religious texts etc. Finding this
information holds value to add to the ongoing research that is being conducted on how
religion affects cognition and behavior.
Methodology
For the collection of primary research, I posted a survey called Prosocial
Behavior From Religious Literacies to an online group of students in the class of 2016 at
the University of Central Florida. Being a student at the University of Central Florida,
surveying my peers and gaining knowledge about how religion has influenced their
behavior seems apropos to my topic of research. I posted this survey into the class of
2016 Facebook group, so my respondents were around 18-20 years of age. In attempt to
get a higher number of respondents all responses were made anonymous because some

regard the subject of religion as sensitive and controversial. Due to the anonymity of the
survey, I was unable to contact the participants and follow up on the responses so my
conclusions are based solely on the results of the survey. However, with the anonymity, I
hoped that my participants would be more inclined to answer honestly about questions
that involve how they would handle certain situations. The first questions established
whether or not the individual was raised in a religious environment and what were the
literacies in which they got their education. A series of questions regarding controversial
moral topics (abortion, death penalty, etc.) were included as well as questions of personal
generosity (charity involvement, money donation). Whether or not their religious beliefs
were consistent with their parents was also incorporated and demographics were included
at the end. I collected thirty-six total responses all providing some consistent and
inconsistent statistics.
Results

For those that were exposed to religious literacies, home education from a parent
or guardian and the instruction from a religious institution were the most popular. The
two belief systems that had the most responses were either Christian or unaffiliated. For
the women who said that they were religious, the majority responded to personally not
getting an abortion. Also, those who had been raised in a religious environment had more
parents still married than divorced. To my surprise, most of those who considered
themselves affiliated with a religion did believe in the death penalty while more of those
who answered unaffiliated did not. Another interesting result was that the majority of
respondents, whether religious or not, had a consistent belief system with that of their
parents. There were a few that were not consistent and those results typically were that
the respondent was raised in a religious setting with religious parents and they personally
were not. The question asked about their reasoning for giving money to a homeless man
included the response, Do unto others as they would have them do to you and Because
it is a nice thing to do. For those who said their reasoning was the golden rule, all were
religiously affiliated and for those who were unaffiliated all picked it is a nice thing to
do. However, some of those who identified with a religion did pick that option as well.
Discussion

From the data collected, this research proves to be consistent with prior research
in that the influence of religion does have a positive effect on prosocial behavior.
Through the survey Prosocial Behavior from Religious Literacies it is evident that the
medium or literacy from which an individual is influenced affects their cognitive
thinking. For those that were raised in a religious setting, most were educated through a
religious institution such as a church or temple. This meaning that their beliefs have been
shaped by their religions religious leaders (priest, rabbi, etc.). From prior research, this
demonstrates that these individuals would be more prone towards prosociality and
cooperation of their own individual ingroup or those with the same religious affiliation.
Of the respondents, 70% said that their religious mindset is consistent with that of their
parents. With parent/guardian education being the second most popular literacy, one can
conclude that religious literacies greatly shape how an individual sees religion rather than
forming a completely unbiased view. To add to that, personal exploration was the least
common form of religious influence. In addition, the data that reflects the death penalty
can be directly correlated with the study, Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among
Less Religious Individuals. Finding that more individuals who were unaffiliated did not
believe in the death penalty can suggest that the nonreligious show more compassion in
ethics than those who are. Most religious denominations believe that moral behavior will
result in a reward and bad behavior will result in punishment. Therefore, affiliated
individuals view the death penalty as acceptable as a punishment while an unaffiliated
individual would view it as unethical and uncompassionate.
In conducting my research, there are certain implications that can hinder the
accuracy of what I plan to find. Because of the nature of religion being such a personal
issue, there is no way to tell if my respondents are answering my questions in an entirely
honest manner. Also, third-variable past experiences separate from their religious belief
system could potentially sway how participants answer questions in studies about
behavior and their cognitive thinking. The concept of what drives a religious individual to
act prosocially, whether it be for egoistic motives or compassion, is still not entirely
certain due to these implications in this field of research. However, based on the
collective research, data shows that religious individuals influenced by different literacies
affect cognitive thinking and advocate prosociality. The information I collected in my
research is not necessarily aimed toward promoting massives reforms for social change.
As discussed before, god and religion has affected humankind for almost as long as our
race has existed. It is hard to imagine history without the influence of religion, so
understanding how it affects current-day societies is why this research is so important.
The information I and other researchers have acquired, is more so geared toward gaining
knowledge of why people act they way they do, instead of finding research to change
behavior.

Works Cited
Shariff, Azim F., and Ara Norenzayan. "God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts
Increases
Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic
Game."Psychological Science 18.9
(2007): 803-809.

Saslow, Laura R., et al. "My brothers keeper? Compassion predicts generosity more
among less
religious individuals." Social Psychological and Personality
Science 4.1 (2013): 31-38.
van Beest, Ilja, and Kipling D. Williams. "Why hast thou forsaken me? The effect of
thinking
about being ostracized by God on well-being and prosocial
behavior." Social
Psychological and Personality Science 2.4 (2011):
379-386.
Bloom, Pazit Ben-Nun, and Gizem Arikan. "Priming Religious Belief and Religious
Social
Behavior Affects Support for Democracy." International Journal
of Public Opinion
Research (2012).
Raihani, Nichola J., and Redouan Bshary. "A positive effect of flowers rather than eye
images in a
large-scale, cross-cultural dictator game." Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 279.1742 (2012): 3556-3564.
Laurin, Kristin, et al. "Outsourcing punishment to God: beliefs in divine control reduce
earthly
punishment." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
279.1741 (2012):
3272-3281.
Norenzayan, Ara, Joseph Henrich, and Edward Slingerland. "Religious prosociality: A
synthesis."
Gervais, Will M., and Ara Norenzayan. "Reminders of secular authority reduce believers
distrust
of atheists." Psychological science 23.5 (2012): 483-491.
Huber, John Thomas, and Douglas A. MacDonald. "An investigation of the relations
between
altruism, empathy, and spirituality." Journal of Humanistic
Psychology 52.2 (2012):
206-221.
Malka, Ariel, and Christopher J. Soto. "The conflicting influences of religiosity on
attitude toward
torture." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37.8
(2011): 1091-1103.
McKay, Ryan, et al. "Wrath of God: religious primes and punishment."Proceedings of
the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences 278.1713 (2011): 1858-1863.
Bremner, Ryan H., Sander L. Koole, and Brad J. Bushman. "Pray for Those Who
Mistreat
You: Effects of Prayer on Anger and Aggression." Personality
and Social Psychology
Bulletin 37.6 (2011): 830-837.
Saroglou, Vassilis. "Religion, spirituality, and altruism." The APA Handbook of
psychology,
religion and spirituality 1 (2013).
Schlter, Achim, and Bjoern Vollan. "Morals as an incentive? A field study on honour
based
flower picking." European Review of Agricultural Economics 38.1
(2011): 79-97.

Inzlicht, Michael, and Alexa M. Tullett. "Reflecting on God Religious Primes Can Reduce
Neurophysiological Response to Errors." Psychological Science21.8
(2010): 1184-1190.
Graham, Jesse, and Jonathan Haidt. "Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into
moral
communities." Personality and Social Psychology Review 14.1 (2010):
140-150.