Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict

Atran, Scott; Ginges, Jeremy

doi:10.1126/science.1216902

Cited by 216 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

179

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although we did not directly measure aggression or risk-taking, the present results may articulate with the growing literature showing that religious cognition can potentiate aggression (e.g., Atran & Ginges, 2012;Kruglanski et al, 2009;McKay et al, 2011) …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 55%

With God on our side: Religious primes reduce the envisioned physical formidability of a menacing adversary

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The imagined support of benevolent supernatural agents attenuates anxiety and risk perception. Here, we extend these findings to judgments of the threat posed by a potentially violent adversary. Conceptual representations of bodily size and strength summarize factors that determine the relative threat posed by foes. The proximity of allies moderates the envisioned physical formidability of adversaries, suggesting that cues of access to supernatural allies will reduce the envisioned physical formidability of a threatening target. Across two studies, subtle cues of both supernatural and earthly social support reduced the envisioned physical formidability of a violent criminal. These manipulations had no effect on the perceived likelihood of encountering non-conflictual physical danger, raising the possibility that imagined supernatural support leads participants to view themselves not as shielded from encountering perilous situations, but as protected should perils arise.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 55%

With God on our side: Religious primes reduce the envisioned physical formidability of a menacing adversary

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For individuals who have strongly internalized a norm, violating it is psychologically painful even if the direct material benefits for the violation are positive. Many individuals and groups are willing to pay extremely high costs to enact, defend, or promulgate norms that they consider important (12). At the same time, virtually all norms can be violated by individuals under some conditions (e.g., if the costs of compliance are too high).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization

Gavrilets

Richerson

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

212

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human behavior is strongly affected by culturally transmitted norms and values. Certain norms are internalized (i.e., acting according to a norm becomes an end in itself rather than merely a tool in achieving certain goals or avoiding social sanctions). Humans' capacity to internalize norms likely evolved in our ancestors to simplify solving certain challenges-including social ones. Here we study theoretically the evolutionary origins of the capacity to internalize norms. In our models, individuals can choose to participate in collective actions as well as punish free riders. In making their decisions, individuals attempt to maximize a utility function in which normative values are initially irrelevant but play an increasingly important role if the ability to internalize norms emerges. Using agent-based simulations, we show that norm internalization evolves under a wide range of conditions so that cooperation becomes "instinctive." Norm internalization evolves much more easily and has much larger effects on behavior if groups promote peer punishment of free riders. Promoting only participation in collective actions is not effective. Typically, intermediate levels of norm internalization are most frequent but there are also cases with relatively small frequencies of "oversocialized" individuals willing to make extreme sacrifices for their groups no matter material costs, as well as "undersocialized" individuals completely immune to social norms. Evolving the ability to internalize norms was likely a crucial step on the path to large-scale human cooperation.H uman social behavior is controlled by many interacting factors including material cost-benefit considerations, genetically informed social instincts, personality, and culturally transmitted norms, values, and institutions (1-5). A social norm is a behavior that one is expected to follow and expects others to follow in a given social situation (6, 7). Humans learn norms from parents, through educational and religious practices, and from friends and acquaintances, books, and media. The adherence to norms is socially reinforced by the approval of, and rewards to, individuals who follow them and punishment of norm violators. Certain norms are internalized, that is, acting according to a norm becomes an end in itself rather than merely a tool in achieving certain goals or avoiding social sanctions (1, 2, 8-11). For individuals who have strongly internalized a norm, violating it is psychologically painful even if the direct material benefits for the violation are positive. Many individuals and groups are willing to pay extremely high costs to enact, defend, or promulgate norms that they consider important (12). At the same time, virtually all norms can be violated by individuals under some conditions (e.g., if the costs of compliance are too high). Norms thus can be viewed as one of the arguments in the utility function that each individual maximizes (9).Internalizing a norm has two significant effects upon human behavior: People who have internalized a norm follow...

show abstract

“…As Darwin surmised in The Descent of Man (11), it is not merely commitment to a tribe of imagined kin but also to its "morality" that instills "the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy" with which winning groups are better endowed in history's spiraling competition for survival and dominance. Studies across cultures suggest that the strongest forms of primary group identity are bounded by sacred values (12), often in the form of religious beliefs or transcendental ideologies (13), which leads some groups to prevail because of nonrational commitment from at least some of its members to actions that drive success independent-or all out of proportion-from expected rational outcomes (14). For such "devoted actors," rightness of in-group cause often leads to intractable conflicts with out-groups that become immune to the give-and-take common to "business-like" negotiations (15).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%