Prosocial skeptics: Skepticism and generalized trust

Loveland, Matthew T.; Capella, Alexander G; Maisonet, India

doi:10.1177/2050303217707245

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…How are qualities of tolerance and trust related to the process of changing beliefs and affiliation? As with previous studies (Loveland, Capella & Maisonet 2017;Welch, Sikkink & Loveland 2007) our analysis indicated that individuals with a naturalistic worldview are more trusting and tolerant of others than individuals with a supernatural worldview (especially when the latter are religiously affiliated). The WVS longitudinal data indicated that those who changed from religious belief to nonbelief were more likely earlier on to display tolerance of others, compared to individuals whose belief changes went in the other direction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The factors that contribute most to greater levels of civic participation and volunteering involve access to social contacts and networking influences found in religious groups (Becker & Dhingra 2001;Lewis, MacGregor & Putnam 2013;Monsma 2007). Studies that hold constant social factors such as group attendance have found that religious beliefs themselves are unrelated, or even negatively related, to generalized trust and volunteering (Burge 2019;Loveland, Capella & Maisonet 2017;Petrovic, et al 2018;Putnam & Campbell 2010). Nonreligious individuals also engage in more volunteering if they are socially linked to active members of religious congregations (Lim & MacGregor 2012), which further weakens the claim that religious beliefs are the primary driver of prosociality.…”

Section: Religious or Secular Effects?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These distinctions are directly relevant to religiously-affiliated groups because while they have strong within-group network ties they tend to have weaker outgroup ties. This effect is related to the fact that religious groups typically have more homogeneous and homophilous social networks relative to the networks of nonreligious and unaffiliated individuals (Cheadle & Schwadel 2012), as well as the fact that nonreligious individuals tend to show more generalized trust (Loveland, Capella & Maisonet 2017;Welch, Sikkink, & Loveland 2007). Thus, the same dynamics at work in the promotion of social bonding and capital within religious groups are also linked to ingroup homophily and to intolerance of those outside the group.…”

Section: Scope Of Prosocialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modeling the Effects of Religious Belief and Affiliation on Prosociality

Galen

Gore

Shults

2021

Secularism and Nonreligion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do supernatural beliefs, group affiliation, and social interaction produce values and behaviors that benefit others, i.e., prosociality? Addressing this question involves multiple variables interacting within complex social networks that shape and constrain the beliefs and behaviors of individuals. We examine the relationships among some of these factors utilizing data from the World Values Survey to inform the construction of an Agent-Based Model. The latter was able to identify the conditions under which -and the mechanisms by which -the prosociality of simulated agents was increased or decreased within an "artificial society" designed to reflect real world parameters. The combined results indicated that prosociality was more related to agents' group affiliation and social networks than to their worldview beliefs. It also showed that prosociality changed as a function of agents' worldviews, group affiliation, and social network properties. Individuals with supernatural worldviews had higher levels of active prosociality, but this was primarily directed toward ingroup members. Naturalistic believers and the unaffiliated, on the other hand, tended to have higher levels of trust and tolerance. We describe the potential usefulness of such modeling techniques for addressing complex problems in the study of secularity and nonreligion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Religious or Secular Effects?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scope Of Prosocialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling the Effects of Religious Belief and Affiliation on Prosociality

Galen

Gore

Shults

2021

Secularism and Nonreligion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other previous studies on religious affiliation support these findings, including results showing that religiosity is associated with: (1) ingroup binding but also greater cliquishness, a distrust of outsiders, and an unwillingness to mingle with them [48,49] and (2) general outgroup distrust [50]. In contrast, previous studies have found nonreligious individuals show greater generalized trust [34,51].…”

Section: Active Pro-socialitymentioning

confidence: 61%

Good Without God? Connecting Religiosity, Affiliation And Pro-sociality Using World Values Survey Data And Agent-based Simulation

Gore¹,

Zuckerman²,

Galen³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the relationships among individuals' religiosity (or secularity), affiliation with like-minded religious others, volunteerism, and trust and tolerance. Using data analysis of the World Values Survey, we pose and answer research questions about the types of individuals who are the most trusting, the most tolerant, and who volunteer the most. We show how distinguishing between different types of volunteer activities and using longitudinal data can provide more insight into these questions. We also use an established agent-based model to generate measures similar to those operationalized in the World Values Survey. We then reproduce the findings of the World Values Survey data analysis and extract the internal dynamics of simulation experiments (under a reasonable parameterization of the model) to provide an explanation for those findings.

show abstract

“…Despite the stereotype that nonreligious people are antisocial (e.g., Bainbridge, 2005), emerging research on the secular organization "Sunday Assembly" actually indicates that attendees derive a majority of well-being benefits from their unstructured socializing with other attendees (Price & Launay, 2018). Perhaps related to their tendency to join support/hobby organizations, researchers have found a greater level of social trust among atheists relative to those with more uncertain existential beliefs (McCaffree, 2017;Loveland, Capella & Maisonet, 2017). This latter finding is an important one because generalized social trust is a predictor of healthy cognitive functioning, in part, because generalized trust is associated with lower levels of stress (Abbott & Freeth, 2008;Neumann & Landgraf, 2012;McDougle, Konrath, Walk & Handy, 2016).…”

Section: Atheism Social Capital and Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Atheism, Social Networks and Health: A Review and Theoretical Model

McCaffree

2019

Secularism and Nonreligion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction From an evolutionary standpoint, social networks have been critical in the biological and cultural development of human beings (Pinker, 2010; Hrdy, 2011; Price & Johnson, 2011). Cooperative hunting and food sharing, alloparenting of kin and nonkin, reliance on others during times of sickness or during periods of pregnancy and potential tribal warfare are all staples of the sort of foraging existence within which the human mind evolved (Tooby & Cosmides, 2015). The ultimate punishment meted out by foraging groups is social abandonment, which is certain to result in death (Boehm, 2012), and today in modern societies, socially isolated people experience greater subjective pain and higher rates of mortality (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004; Lieberman, 2013; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, Baker, Harris & Stephenson, 2015). Fundamentally, then, humans are a social species, relying on social capital, or the support emanating from social networks, to survive. Secondarily, from a cultural standpoint, the material security hypothesis suggests that in societies that are unstable or impoverished, people will tend to seek out dense, homogeneous social networks that help to meet needs for food, shelter and protection (Hruschka et al., 2014). Regarding religiosity, this indicates that material insecurity will tend to motivate people to embed themselves into dense, homogeneous religious communities in order to seek safety and material support (Norris & Inglehart, 2011; Barber, 2011). On the other hand, the expansion of impartial and well-funded social welfare institutions will reduce material insecurity and, thus, commitment

show abstract

Prosocial skeptics: Skepticism and generalized trust

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

Modeling the Effects of Religious Belief and Affiliation on Prosociality

Modeling the Effects of Religious Belief and Affiliation on Prosociality

Good Without God? Connecting Religiosity, Affiliation And Pro-sociality Using World Values Survey Data And Agent-based Simulation

Atheism, Social Networks and Health: A Review and Theoretical Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About