Effect of religious priming in prosocial and destructive behaviour

Abstract

In this paper, we study the behavioural impact of religious priming by showing participants religious words in a scrambled sentence task before a dictator game and a joy‐of‐destruction game. We also elicited data on individual religiosity and religious affiliation using a questionnaire. Priming religious words significantly increased prosocial behaviour in the dictator game, and the effect was especially striking among those reporting no religion, atheists and agnostics. The religious prime has no significant effect in mitigating destructive behaviour or own expectations of the other's destruction choice, but both destructive behaviour and expectations correlate positively with the multi‐dimensional religiosity measure.

Validation of the Portuguese Version of Hoge Intrinsic Motivation Religiosity Scale and Rohrbaugh and Jessor Religiosity Scale

“…Then, the EFA suggested the existence of a single factor with six items, and this was confirmed by the subsequent CFA. This unidimensional structure of the RJRS is in line with previous validations (Nicholas & Durrheim, 1996; Rohrbaugh & Jessor, 1975, 2017; Zhang et al, 2020). Although Glock (1962) suggested five core dimensions of religiosity (belief, knowledge, experience, practice, and consequences) and Lenski (1961) proposed four dimensions (doctrinal orthodoxy, devotionalism, associational religiosity, and communal religiosity outside the church setting), others stated that several measures of religiosity make up a single, unidimensional scale (Clayton, 1971; Voas, 2007).…”

Unethical decision making and sleep restriction: Experimental evidence

“…Second, we test the relationship between sleep restriction and unethical or deviant behavior across three distinct decision tasks: the money burning task (Zizzo and Oswald, 2001), the coin flip task (Bucciol and Piovesan, 2011;Houser et al, 2012), and the matrix task (Mazar et al, 2008). 6 The money burning game is commonly used to study anti-social preferences (Zizzo and Oswald, 2001;Zizzo, 2004;Abbink and Sadrieh, 2009;Abbink and Herrmann, 2011;Prediger et al, 2014;Dickinson and Masclet, 2019;Zhang et al, 2020), while the coin flip and matrix tasks involve objective honesty or cheating behavior.…”

Unethical Decision Making and Sleep Restriction: Experimental Evidence

“…A first contribution of our study is that we test the relationship between sleep restriction and unethical activities by reporting results from three different decision tasks: the money burning task (Zizzo and Oswald, 2001, the coin flip task (Bucciol and Piovesan, 2011;Houser et al, 2012), and the matrix task (Mazar et al, 2008). The money burning game is commonly used to study anti-social preferences (Zizzo and Oswald, 2001;Zizzo, 2004;Abbink and Sadrieh, 2009;Abbink and Herrmann, 2011;Prediger et al, 2014;Dickinson and Masclet, 2019;Zhang et al, 2020), while the coin flip and matrix tasks involve honesty. The second contribution of our work is that we provide an original theoretical framework for decision making with moral concerns that may help identify key pathways through which sleep restriction may affect choices.…”