Religiosity predicts prosociality, especially when measured by self-report: A meta-analysis of almost 60 years of research.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-26 DOI:10.1037/bul0000413
John Michael Kelly, Stephanie R Kramer, Azim F Shariff
{"title":"Religiosity predicts prosociality, especially when measured by self-report: A meta-analysis of almost 60 years of research.","authors":"John Michael Kelly, Stephanie R Kramer, Azim F Shariff","doi":"10.1037/bul0000413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This meta-analysis explores the long-standing and heavily debated question of whether religiosity is associated with prosocial and antisocial behavior at the individual level. In an analysis of 701 effects across 237 samples, encompassing 811,663 participants, a significant relationship of <i>r</i> = .13 was found between religiosity and prosociality (and antisociality, which was treated as its inverse). Nevertheless, there was substantial heterogeneity of effect sizes, and several potential moderators were explored. The effect was most heavily moderated by the type of measurement used to assess prosocial or antisocial behavior. Religiosity correlated more strongly with self-reported prosociality (<i>r</i> = .15) than with directly measured prosocial behavior (<i>r</i> = .06). Three possible interpretations of this moderation are discussed, namely, that (a) lab-based methods do not accurately or fully capture actual religious prosociality; (b) the self-report effect is explained by religious self-enhancement and overreports actual prosociality; or (c) both religiosity and self-reported prosociality are explained by self-enhancement. The question of whether religiosity more strongly positively predicts prosociality or negatively predicts antisociality is also explored. This moderation is, at most, weak. We test additional potential moderators, including the aspect of religiosity and type of behavior measured, the ingroup or outgroup nature of the recipient, and study characteristics. Finally, we recommend a shift in how researchers investigate questions of religiosity and prosociality in the future. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"284-318"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000413","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta-analysis explores the long-standing and heavily debated question of whether religiosity is associated with prosocial and antisocial behavior at the individual level. In an analysis of 701 effects across 237 samples, encompassing 811,663 participants, a significant relationship of r = .13 was found between religiosity and prosociality (and antisociality, which was treated as its inverse). Nevertheless, there was substantial heterogeneity of effect sizes, and several potential moderators were explored. The effect was most heavily moderated by the type of measurement used to assess prosocial or antisocial behavior. Religiosity correlated more strongly with self-reported prosociality (r = .15) than with directly measured prosocial behavior (r = .06). Three possible interpretations of this moderation are discussed, namely, that (a) lab-based methods do not accurately or fully capture actual religious prosociality; (b) the self-report effect is explained by religious self-enhancement and overreports actual prosociality; or (c) both religiosity and self-reported prosociality are explained by self-enhancement. The question of whether religiosity more strongly positively predicts prosociality or negatively predicts antisociality is also explored. This moderation is, at most, weak. We test additional potential moderators, including the aspect of religiosity and type of behavior measured, the ingroup or outgroup nature of the recipient, and study characteristics. Finally, we recommend a shift in how researchers investigate questions of religiosity and prosociality in the future. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宗教信仰可预测亲社会性,尤其是通过自我报告进行测量时:对近 60 年研究的荟萃分析。
本荟萃分析探讨了宗教信仰是否与个人层面的亲社会行为和反社会行为相关这一长期存在且备受争议的问题。在对 237 个样本、811663 名参与者的 701 个效应进行分析后发现,宗教信仰与亲社会性(以及作为其反义词的反社会性)之间存在 r = .13 的显著关系。然而,效应大小存在很大的异质性,研究人员对几个潜在的调节因素进行了探讨。用于评估亲社会或反社会行为的测量类型对该效应的调节作用最大。与直接测量的亲社会行为(r = .06)相比,宗教信仰与自我报告的亲社会性(r = .15)的相关性更强。我们讨论了对这种调节作用的三种可能解释,即:(a)基于实验室的方法不能准确或全面地捕捉到实际的宗教亲社会性;(b)自我报告效应是由宗教自我提升和过度报告实际亲社会性所解释的;或(c)宗教信仰和自我报告的亲社会性都是由自我提升所解释的。此外,我们还探讨了宗教信仰对亲社会性的预测是更积极还是更消极的问题。这种调节作用最多是微弱的。我们还测试了其他潜在的调节因素,包括宗教信仰的方面和所测量的行为类型、受试者的内群体或外群体性质以及研究特点。最后,我们建议研究人员改变今后研究宗教信仰与亲社会性问题的方式。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
期刊最新文献
Cognitive factors underlying mathematical skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Defining social reward: A systematic review of human and animal studies. Cultural diversity climate in school: A meta-analytic review of its relationships with intergroup, academic, and socioemotional outcomes. The development of children's gender stereotypes about STEM and verbal abilities: A preregistered meta-analytic review of 98 studies. Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1