Implicit and explicit influences of religious cognition on Dictator Game transfers

Abstract

Does religion promote prosocial behaviour? Despite numerous publications that seem to answer this question affirmatively, divergent results from recent meta-analyses and pre-registered replication efforts suggest that the issue is not yet settled. Uncertainty lingers around (i) whether the effects of religious cognition on prosocial behaviour were obtained through implicit cognitive processes, explicit cognitive processes or both and (ii) whether religious cognition increases generosity only among people disinclined to share with anonymous strangers. Here, we report two experiments designed to address these concerns. In Experiment 1, we sought to replicate Shariff and Norenzayan's demonstration of the effects of implicit religious priming on Dictator Game transfers to anonymous strangers; unlike Shariff and Norenzayan, however, we used an online environment where anonymity was virtually assured. In Experiment 2, we introduced a ‘taking’ option to allow greater expression of baseline selfishness. In both experiments, we sought to activate religious cognition implicitly and explicitly, and we investigated the possibility that religious priming depends on the extent to which subjects view God as a punishing, authoritarian figure. Results indicated that in both experiments, religious subjects transferred more money on average than did non-religious subjects. Bayesian analyses supported the null hypothesis that implicit religious priming did not increase Dictator Game transfers in either experiment, even among religious subjects. Collectively, the two experiments furnished support for a small but reliable effect of explicit priming, though among religious subjects only. Neither experiment supported the hypothesis that the effect of religious priming depends on viewing God as a punishing figure. Finally, in a meta-analysis of relevant studies, we found that the overall effect of implicit religious priming on Dictator Game transfers was small and did not statistically differ from zero.

What’s hidden in my filedrawer and what’s in yours? Disclosing Non-published Findings in the Cognitive Science of Religion

“…First, in Study 1 and 2 religious priming did not increase the amount of money that people donated -though we found that religiosity was correlated to people's self-reported willingness to donate. The lack of an overall effect of religious priming on prosociality echoes recent findings from two registered reports on this topic (Billingsley, Gomes, & McCullough, 2018;Gomes & McCullough, 2015)although explicit religious priming seems to increase prosocial behavior selectively among religious participants (Billingsley et al, 2018;Shariff et al, 2016). The absence of an effect of our experimental manipulation in both studies among religious participants could be related to the lack of compliance, as participants completed the study online.…”

What’s hidden in my filedrawer and what’s in yours? Disclosing non-published findings in the cognitive science of religion

“…First, in Study 1 and 2 religious priming did not increase the amount of money that people donated-though we found that religiosity was correlated to people's self-reported willingness to donate. The lack of an overall effect of religious priming on prosociality echoes recent findings from two registered reports on this topic (Billingsley, Gomes, & McCullough, 2018;Gomes & McCullough, 2015)-although explicit religious priming seems to increase prosocial behavior selectively among religious participants (Billingsley et al, 2018;Shariff et al, 2016). The lack of an effect in our study among religious participants could be related to the lack of compliance, as participants completed the study online.…”

Replicating and extending the effects of auditory religious cues on dishonest behavior

“…To determine the validity and generalizability of religious priming, improved experiment procedures and more diverse samples must be explored. Oftentimes, religious priming research has utilized dictator games to measure prosociality [6,7,[20][21][22][23][24]. However, behavior in dictator games has been observed to lack global generalizability, as people from different cultures demonstrate unique norms for altruism when playing dictator games [25,26].…”

“…However, behavior in dictator games has been observed to lack global generalizability, as people from different cultures demonstrate unique norms for altruism when playing dictator games [25,26]. The method of religious priming can also influence results as recent work indicates that explicit religious primes (i.e., writing tasks) produce only small effects on prosociality, while implicit religious primes (i.e., anagrams) do not appear to influence responses to prosocial measures [22]. Furthermore, religious priming effects have primarily been studied using largely homogeneous, WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) samples, raising additional concerns about the generalizability of observed effects across other populations [1,27,28].…”