Are Religious People More Pro-Social? Pro-social Values, Dispositional Submissiveness and Reputational Concerns Mediate or Moderate the Religion Pro-Sociality Link
Stefanie van Esveld
University of Amsterdam
Date: June 26th 2014
Course: Bachelor thesis Social Psychology Tutor: Mr. D.L.R. Maij MSc Res
Abstract
Numerous authors have suggested a direct link between religiosity and pro-social behavior. Other studies however, suggest that the association is complex and that general psychological processes underlie the religion pro-sociality link. In this review three general psychological processes are proposed to mediate or moderate the religion pro-sociality link: Pro-social values, dispositional submissiveness and reputational concerns. Specific hypotheses for the presumed relationships are put forward including predictions about pro-social behavior towards both in- and out-group members. Limitations of the findings are discussed and suggestions for future research are outlined.
Pro-social Values, Dispositional Submissiveness and Reputational Concerns Mediate or Moderate the Religion Pro-Sociality Link
Pro-social behaviors are voluntary actions undertaken to benefit others and include, sharing, caring, donating, comforting and helping (Batson, 1998; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). Religiosity, defined as commitment to, identification with and involvement in a religious system (Hardy & Carlo, 2005) has been positively associated and in some cases even causally linked to several pro-social behaviors (e.g., Benson, Williams, & Johnson, 1987; Ellison, 1992; Furrow, King, & White, 2004; Smith, 1999; Mattis et al., 2000; Smith & Faris, 2002; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1999). Additionally, religiosity has been negatively related to delinquency, drug abuse, alcoholism, divorce and suicide (Myers, 2000). Based on such results some researchers have concluded that religious people are “nicer” individuals (e.g., McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Studies arguing that religious people are more pro-social or are generally nicer individuals often receive broad media coverage beyond academic circles (Tierney, 2008), consequently non-religious people, at least in religious societies, may be negatively stereotyped. Acknowledging that there exists a connection between religiosity and pro-social behavior, the relationship is likely complex (Hardy & Carlo, 2005) and to conclude that religious people are generally “nicer” individuals seems premature.
Although many researchers have found positive associations between religiosity and pro-social behavior (Benson et al., 1987; Ellison, 1992; Furrow et al., 2004; Smith, 1999; Mattis et al., 2000; Smith & Faris, 2002; Youniss et al., 1999), others have only found positive associations between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards in-group members, but not towards out-group members (Saroglou et al., 2005; Blogowska, Lambert, & Saroglou, 2012). Still others did not find any association between religiosity and pro-social behavior
(Annis, 1976; Darley & Batson, 1973; Grossman, 2011; Sundeen & Raskoff, 1995). Some studies even found an association between religiosity and non-pro-social behavior such as prejudice (Johnson, Rowatt, & LaBouff, 2010) and retaliatory aggression (Saroglou, Corneille, & van Cappelen, 2009). Galen (2012) expressed criticism about research confirming the religion-pro-sociality link. He argues that many effects attributed to religion, can be explained in terms of general psychological processes and reproaches researchers on the topic of using inappropriate comparison groups (i.e. comparing “high” levels of religion to “low” levels of religion, instead of comparing religious people to atheists). Other researchers have found his statements far too extreme (e.g., Saroglou, 2012). Research by Shariff and Norenzayan (2007) does supports Galen’s view. They showed that when atheists were primed with secular concepts it increased pro-social behavior in the same way that priming religious concepts to religious people increased pro-social behavior. This suggests that there is as much a link between atheism and pro-social behavior as there is between religiosity and pro-social behavior. This points in the direction of Galen’s (2012) argument that there are general psychological processes responsible for the frequently found association between religiosity and pro-social behavior.
Which general psychological processes are proposed to influence the religion pro-sociality link, varies across studies. Many researchers have proposed that pro-social values might underlie the religion pro-sociality link (Batson, Schoenrade, & Pych, 1985; Benson et al.,1987; Bernt, 1989; Caprara, Allesandri, & Eisenberg, 2012; Ellison, 1992; Hardy & Carlo, 2005; Mattis et al., 2000; Ritzema, 1979; Saroglou, 2013; Smith, 1999; Wilson & Janoski, 1995; Youniss et al.,1999). Another proposed psychological process that might explain the religion pro-sociality link is submission to authority (Saroglou, 2013, see also for other proposed psychological processes). Another process was proposed by Shariff and Norenzayan
(2007) they proposed that reputational concerns might be responsible for the religion pro-sociality link. In this review it is argued that pro-social values, dispositional submissiveness and reputational concerns respectively, mediate or moderate the religion pro-sociality link.
Pro-social Values
Pro-social values have frequently been proposed to influence pro-social behavior (Batson et al.,1985; Benson et al.,1989; Bernt, 1989; ; Caprara et al., 2012; Ellison, 1992; Hardy & Carlo, 2005; Mattis et al., 2000; Ritzema, 1979; Saroglou, 2013; Smith, 1999; Wilson & Janoski, 1995; Youniss et al., 1999). The values most mentioned in research on the topic are self-transcendence values, which consist of the more specific values universalism and benevolence (Schwartz & Huismans, 1995). Self-transcendent values have been associated with pro-social behavior (Caprara & Steca, 2007) and have even been shown to be a relatively strong predictor of pro-social behavior (Caprara et al., 2012). However, a possible confounder in these studies is that researchers have taken benevolence and universalism together in their measurement of self-transcendent values though they are theoretically distinct. The value of benevolence indicates enhancement of the welfare of familiar people (i.e. in-group members) while the value of universalism indicates general concern and protection of welfare for all people (in- and out-group members) (Schwartz & Huismans, 1995). Because some studies have only found positive associations between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards in-group members (Blogowska et al., 2012; Saroglou et al., 2005), it is important to look at the value of benevolence and the value of universalism separately.
Looking at just benevolence, researchers have shown that religiosity correlates positively with the value of benevolence (Pepper, Jackson & Uzzell, 2010; Saroglou, Delpierre, & Dernelle, 2004; Schwarts & Huismans, 1995). In one study, researchers tested
the hypothesis that the link between religiosity and pro-social behavior would be mediated by the pro-social value of benevolence. The pro-social value of benevolence was found to be a mediator of the religion pro-sociality link, indicating that religiosity alone is not a sufficient predictor of pro-social behavior and that pro-social behavior is in some cases the result of the pro-social value of benevolence (Hardy & Carlo, 2005). Although this finding is valuable, there are some remarks worth mentioning. In the study an adolescent sample was used, which may differ from adult samples. However, it could also be argued that when one finds the value of benevolence to mediate the religion pro-sociality link in an adolescent sample, it should also be find in an adult sample because adults have had more time to develop their religiosity and values. Another remark worth mentioning concerns the measurement of pro-social behavior. Pro-pro-social behavior was measured by assessing pro-pro-social tendencies, without specifying the group membership of the person to whom the pro-social behavior would be directed. Consequently, whether that person was an in-group or an out-group member was left to the interpretation of the participant. Because the researchers looked at just benevolence, an effect for the in-group should theoretically be expected, but because of the used operationalization it remains unclear if this effect was really found, or that an effect for both in- and out-group members was found. Nevertheless, the study shows that the value of benevolence mediates the religion pro-sociality link, whether the pro-social behavior is directed at the in- or the out-group.
When looking at just universalism, researchers have found religiosity to be negatively associated with the value of universalism (Pepper et al., 2010; Saroglou et al., 2004). However, in one of those studies for a sample of churchgoers the relationship proved to be non-significant (Pepper et al., 2010). Additionally, in a meta-analysis researchers showed that the overall negative association that was found, was mainly due to negative values from
studies done in Mediterranean countries (Saroglou et al., 2004). The association between religiosity and universalism was less negative for western Europe countries. Thus it seems there exist some differences between general religious people and churchgoers regarding universalism, as well as between western European countries and more Mediterranean countries. Nevertheless, the associations were either less negative or close to zero, indicating a definite negative trend.
Based on the above described studies it can be concluded that religiosity is positively associated with pro-social behavior towards the in-group as a result of the value benevolence but negatively associated with pro-social behavior towards the out-group as a result of the absence of the value universalism. Therefore it is hypothesized that the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards in-group members but not towards out-group members, will be mediated by the value of benevolence. Furthermore it is expected that the link between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards both in- and out-group members, will be mediated by the value of universalism.
Dispositional Submissiveness
Saroglou (2013) argued that social behavior might not only be the result of pro-social values, but could also be the result of submission to pro-social standards or authorities. Religion can be viewed as a source of authority and there is evidence that religion induces conformity (Blogowska & Saroglou, 2013). In one study, religious words were primed after which participants completed a numeric estimation task. Participants were provided with estimates of three fictitious other participants and were free to use their estimates or disregard them. Results revealed that priming of religious words increased conformity to the estimates of the fictitious participants, but only for participants scoring high on dispositional submissiveness (Van Cappellen, Corneille, Cols, & Saroglou, 2011). This study showed that
priming of religious words increased conformity to informational influence. However, some remarks are worth mentioning. In the described study, the researchers explain their results in terms of conformity to informational influence, however an alternative explanation could be that participants were anchoring and adjusting to the values that they were provided with. Consequently, it is unclear whether the results found in the study were due solely to conformity or were also the result of mere anchoring and adjusting. However, in another study researchers found similar results. Participants were primed with religious words and were invited to take revenge on an individual who had allegedly criticized them. Results revealed that religious priming increased the odds of conformity to the request to take revenge (i.e. conformity to social influence). Again, these results were limited to people with dispositional submissiveness (Saroglou et al., 2009). Thus it seems that dispositional submissiveness is crucial for religion to induce conformity to both informational influence and social influence. Whether dispositional submissiveness is also crucial for religion to induce pro-social behavior was answered in the following study. Researchers tested the hypothesis that dispositional submissiveness would mediate the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards out-group members who threaten important values (i.e. atheists). They found that dispositional submissiveness mediated the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior, but only for fundamentalists and not for the regular religious (Blogowska & Saroglou, 2013). Thus dispositional submissiveness seems to be an important explanatory factor for the religion pro-sociality link, but only for people who are fundamentalists. For regular religiosity, conformity to religious authority likely plays a more moderate role. Therefore it is hypothesized that dispositional submissiveness moderates the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards out-group members. Although the aforementioned studies did not look at the role of submissiveness for the relationship between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards in-group members, it could
be argued that, if the relationship holds for out-group members who threaten values, it will most likely hold for in-group members who share the same values. Therefore it is expected that dispositional submissiveness also moderates the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards the in-group. Specifically, it is expected that people scoring high on dispositional submissiveness will be more pro-social than people scoring low on dispositional submissiveness.
Reputational Concerns
Another possible mediator for the religion pro-sociality link is concern for reputation. Shariff and Norenzayan (2007) suggested that religious priming could arouse an imagined presence of supernatural watchers, heightening concern for reputation, which in turn might cause pro-social behavior.Indeed a key aspect of religion is the presence of an omniscient and omnipotent god (e.g., Vail et al., 2010) and the imagined presence of such a supernatural watcher might be the main reason why people behave pro-social to unrelated individuals (e.g., Atran & Norenzayan, 2004; Irons, 1991; Sosis & Ruffle, 2004). In one study on the topic, children’s tendency to open a “forbidden box” was inhibited by telling them that an invisible agent (“Princess Alice”) was in the room with them (Bering, 2003; 2006). In another study, telling research subjects that the ghost of a dead graduate student was present in the testing room reduced cheating (Bering, McLeod, & Shackelford, 2005). In both studies, the inhibition of non-pro-social behavior (i.e. cheating) was likely the result of concern for reputation in the eyes of a supernatural watcher, supporting the presumed relationship between religiosity and pro-social behavior via reputational concerns. In the aforementioned studies participants inhibited non pro-social behavior as a result of a sense of being watched by a supernatural agent. However, a person does not have to be religious to feel a sense of being watched. Theorists support the idea of an hyperactive agency detection device (HADD), a cognitive
mechanism that detects whether another person is present (e.g., Barrett, 2000). Because this mechanism is hyperactive people frequently sense a presence while nobody is actually there, indicating that people do not have to be religious to feel a sense of being watched. Indeed theorists have shown that both actual observation (Barclay, 2004; Milinski, Semmann, & Krambeck, 2002a, 2002b; Wedekind & Braithwaite, 2002) as well as thoughts about being observed (Bateson, Nettle, & Roberts, 2006; Hayley & Fessler, 2005) increased pro-social behavior and a possible mechanism maintaining this generosity is the motivation to maintain a pro-social reputation (Alexander, 1987; Roberts, 1998). In one study on this topic, researchers induced thoughts about being observed by displaying eyespots on a computer screen and found this to increase anonymous pro-social behavior (Hayley & Fessler, 2005). Subjects gave almost twice as much money to their partners compared to subjects in the control condition. However, the larger mean allocations were the result of the greater number of individuals who allocated money to their partners, indicating that there do exist individual differences in sensitivity to environmental cues that compromise anonymity. Nevertheless, the researchers showed that, for most people, mere thoughts about being watched increases pro-social behavior. In another study, a pair of eyes on the “honesty box” increased money contributions for drinks in the university lounge (Bateson et al., 2006), showing that the aforementioned laboratory findings extend to a real-world setting. The above described studies indicate that even minor compromises in anonymity can increase pro-social behavior, suggesting that reputational concerns are important for the onset of pro-social behavior.
Based on the above described studies it is hypothesized that the link between religiosity and pro-social behavior will be mediated by reputational concerns. Mediation was chosen because it is expected that people will generally score high on this variable because, evolutionary speaking, all people care about maintaining a good reputation. Furthermore, it is
expected that this relationship will hold for pro-social behavior towards both in- and out-group members because both are important for maintaining a good reputation.
Discussion
Although many researchers have found positive associations between religiosity and pro-social behavior, the relationship is likely complex. In this review it has been argued that there are general psychological processes underlie the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior: pro-pro-social values, dispositional submissiveness and reputational concerns. With respect to pro-social values, it has been hypothesized that the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards in-group members but not towards out-group members, would be mediated by the value of benevolence. Furthermore, it has been hypothesized that the link between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards both in- and out-group members would be mediated by the value of universalism. Dispositional submissiveness has been hypothesized to moderate the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards both in- and out-group members. Finally, it is expected that reputational concerns will mediate the association between religiosity and pro-social behavior towards both in- and out-group members.
One limitation for the present review is that the articles mentioned, generally used western, Christian samples, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about religiosity and pro-social behavior in general. For example, the results found for pro-social behavior will likely be different in collectivist countries, where people generally behave more pro-social than people in individualistic countries. However, for people living in collectivist countries the proposed relationships will likely be in the same direction, but possibly more substantial because of people’s cultural inclination to be pro-social. As for religiosity, not all religions prescribe pro-social behavior towards other people, therefore the findings described in this
review may not be applicable to all religions. Nevertheless, most religions promote some sort of pro-social behavior (Habito & Inaba, 2006) which makes the findings in this review applicable to at least all religions promoting pro-social behavior. Additionally, this review suggests that not religiosity but, pro-social values, dispositional submissiveness and reputational concerns are responsible for the onset of pro-social behavior and therefore religiosity may even be trivial. Future research however, could look into cultural differences with respect to the proposed relationships and verify whether differences exist for different cultures or different religions.
Another limitation for the present review is that religiosity was generally measured using two items on which participants could indicate the importance of God and religion in their lives. While reliability was generally high, two items do not provide much insight into alternative forms of religiosity such as spirituality or “religion as a quest”. Because the two items did not provide means to express that someone is spiritual, on a quest or practicing some other alternative religion, participants may have indicated to be more religious or less religious than they actually are. Consequently, this may have resulted in an inaccurate measure of religiosity for some participants. However, some studies did use a more elaborate measure of religiosity and found similar results, indicating that the two-item measure of religiosity at least did not impact the general patterns that were found.
In the present article only three general psychological processes were reviewed as possible mediators or moderators of the religion pro-sociality link. However, it is likely that more processes underlie an association as complex as the religion pro-sociality link. Other general psychological processes that might underlie the religion pro-sociality link are outlined in a review by Saroglou (2013). Besides submission to authority, he proposed other-oriented emotions, principles and relational experiences as possible processes. Furthermore, he
proposed self-enhancement and moral identity as possible processes underlying the religion pro-sociality link.
Future studies could combine the findings from this review with the processes outlined by Saroglou (2013) and assess whether the proposed mediators and moderators are empirically supported. With respect to this review the following hypotheses could be tested: Firstly, it could be assessed whether the pro-social value of benevolence and the pro-social value of universalism mediate the religion pro-sociality link. Secondly, dispositional submissiveness could be assessed as a moderator of the religion pro-sociality link. Thirdly, it could be assessed whether reputational concerns meditate the religion pro-sociality link. Additionally, for all proposed hypotheses pro-social behavior could be assessed towards both in- and out-group members, because several studies have confirmed pro-social behavior to differ when directed at in- or out-group members (Saroglou et al., 2005; Blogowska, Lambert, & Saroglou, 2012). If the presumed relationships are found it suggests that not religiosity, but pro-social values, dispositional submissiveness and reputational concerns predict pro-social behavior, suggesting that atheists might be just as pro-social as religious people. Additionally, the results will give insight in the presumed relationships for both in- and out-group members.
References
Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Annis, L. V. (1976). Emergency helping and religious behavior, Psychological Reports, 39, 151–158. Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004). Religion's evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition,
commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 713-730.
Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 209–220.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, C., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social Behavior: Direct effects of trait construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
Barrett, J. L. (2000). Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 29-34.
Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2, 412-414.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 282-316). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P. A., & Pych, V. (1985). Brotherly love or self-concern?: behavioral
consequences of religion. In L. B. Brown (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of religion (pp. 185–208). Elmsford, NY, Pergamon Press.
Benson, P. L., Williams, D. L., & Johnson, A. L. (1987). The quicksilver years: the hopes and fears
of young adolescents. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Bering, J. M. (2003, August). On reading symbolic random events: Children's causal reasoning about unexpected occurrences. Paper presented at the Psychological and Cognitive Foundations of Religiosity Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Bering, J. M. (2006). The folk psychology of souls. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 453-62. Bering, J. M., McLeod, K., & Shackelford, T.K. (2005). Reasoning about dead agents reveal
possible adaptive trends. Human Nature, 16, 360-381.
Bernt, F. M. (1989). Being religious and being altruistic: a study of college service volunteers,
Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 663–669.
Blogowska, J., & Saroglou, V. (2013). For better or for worse: Fundamentalists’ attitudes toward outgroups as a function of exposure to authoritative religious texts. The International Journal
Blogowska, J., Lambert, C., & Saraoglou, V. (2012).
Religious prosociality and aggression: It’s real.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52, 524-536.
Cappellen, P. van, Corneille, O., Cols, S., & Saroglou, V. (2011). Beyond mere compliance to authoritative figures: Religious priming increases conformity to informational influence among submissive people. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21, 97– 105.
Caprara, G. V., Allesandri, G., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Prosociality: The contribution of traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1289-1303.
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of values and self-efficacy beliefs to prosocial behavior across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 218– 239.
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). ‘From Jerusalem to Jericho’: a study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100–108.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.) & W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and
personality development (Vol 3, 6th ed., pp. 646-718). New York, NY: Wiley.
Ellison, C. G. (1992). Are religious people nice people? Evidence from the National Survey of Black Americans. Social Forces, 71, 411–430.
Furrow, J. L., King, P. E. & White, K. (2004). Religion and positive youth development: identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 17–26.
Galen, L. W. (2012). Does religious belief promote prosociality? A critical examination.
Psychological Bulletin, 138, 876-906.
Galen, L. W. (2012b). The complex and elusive nature of religious prosociality: Reply to myers (2012) and saroglou (2012). Psychological Bulletin, 138, 918-923.
Grossman, P. J., & Parrett, M. B. (2011). Religion and prosocial behaviour: a field test. Applied
Economics Letters,18, 523-526.
Habito, R. L. F., & Inaba, K. (Eds.). (2006). The practice of altruism: Caring and religion in global
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo. G. (2005). Religiosity and prosocial behaviours in adolescence: The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education, 34, 231-249.
Hayley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2005). Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior 26, 245-256.
Irons, W. (1991). How did morality evolve? Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 26, 49-89. Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., Barnard-Brak, L. M., Patock-Peckham, J. P., LaBouff, J. P., &
Carlisle, R. D. (2011). A mediational analysis of the role of right-wing authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism in the religiosity–prejudice link. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 851–856.
Mattis, J. S., Jagers, R. J., Hatcher, C. A., Lawhon, G. D., Murphy, E. J., & Murray, Y. F. (2000). Religiosity, volunteerism, and community involvement among African American men: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 391–406.
McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2009). Religion, selfregulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 69–93.
McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 830-853.
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. J. (2002a). Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 881–883.
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. J. (2002b). Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Nature, 415, 424–426.
Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56– 67.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. E., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2010). A study of multidimensional religion constructs and values in the United Kingdom. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 127–146. Pichon, I., Boccato, G., & Saroglou, V. (2007). Nonconscious influences of religion on prosociality:
A priming study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1032-1045.
Ritzema, R. J. (1979). Religiosity and altruism: faith without works?. Journal of Psychology &
Theology, 7, 105–113.
Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: from reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B, 265, 427-431.
Saroglou, V. (2013). Religion, spirituality and altruism. In K. I. Pargament, J. Exline, & J. Jones (Ed.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality. (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Saroglou, V., Corneille, O., & Van Cappellen, P. (2009). “Speak, Lord, your servant is listening”: Religious priming activates submissive thoughts and behaviors. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 19, 143–154.
Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 721–734.
Saroglou, V., Pichon, I., Trompette, L., Verschueren, M., & Dernelle, L. (2005). Prosocial behavior and religion: New evidence based on projective measures and peer ratings. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 323-348.
Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Ed.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better
angels of our nature (pp. 221–241). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four western religions.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88-107.
Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). Priming god concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economics game. Psychological Science, 18, 803-809.
Smith, C., & Faris, R. (2002). Religion and American adolescent delinquency, risk behaviors and
constructive social activities. Chapel Hill, NC: National Study of Youth and Religion.
Smith, E. S. (1999). The effects of investment in the social capital of youth on political and civic behavior in young adulthood: a longitudinal analysis, Political Psychology, 20, 553–580. Sosis, R., & Ruffle, B.J. (2004). Ideology, religion, and the evolution of cooperation: Field tests on
Israeli kibbutzim. Research in Economic Anthropology, 23, 89-117.
Sundeen, R. A., & Raskoff, S. A. (1995). Teenage volunteers and their values. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24, 337–357.
Tierney, J. (2008, December 30). For good self-control, try getting religious about it. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http:/ www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30tier.html.
Vail, K. E., Rothschild, Z. K., Weise, D. R., Solomon, S., Pyszczyinski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2010). A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 84–94.
Wedekind, C., & Braithwaite, V. A. (2002). The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology. 12, 1012–1015.
Wilson, J., & Janoski, T. (1995). The contribution of religion to volunteer work. Sociology of
Religion, 56, 137–152.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1999). Religion, community service, and identity in American youth. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 243–253.
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., Belavich, T. G., Hipp, K. M., Scott, A. B., & Kadar, J. L. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal
