The moralization bias of gods’ minds: a cross-cultural test

IF 3.6 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Religion Brain & Behavior Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006291
B. Purzycki, A. Willard, E. Klocová, C. Apicella, Q. Atkinson, Alexander H. Bolyanatz, Emma Cohen, C. Handley, J. Henrich, M. Lang, C. Lesorogol, Sarah Mathew, R. McNamara, Cristina Moya, A. Norenzayan, Caitlyn D. Placek, Montserrat Soler, Tom Vardy, Jonathan L. Weigel, D. Xygalatas, Cody T Ross
{"title":"The moralization bias of gods’ minds: a cross-cultural test","authors":"B. Purzycki, A. Willard, E. Klocová, C. Apicella, Q. Atkinson, Alexander H. Bolyanatz, Emma Cohen, C. Handley, J. Henrich, M. Lang, C. Lesorogol, Sarah Mathew, R. McNamara, Cristina Moya, A. Norenzayan, Caitlyn D. Placek, Montserrat Soler, Tom Vardy, Jonathan L. Weigel, D. Xygalatas, Cody T Ross","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There are compelling reasons to expect that cognitively representing any active, powerful deity motivates cooperative behavior. One mechanism underlying this association could be a cognitive bias toward generally attributing moral concern to anthropomorphic agents. If humans cognitively represent the minds of deities and humans in the same way, and if human agents are generally conceptualized as having moral concern, a broad tendency to attribute moral concern—a “moralization bias”—to supernatural deities follows. Using data from 2,228 individuals in 15 different field sites, we test for the existence of such a bias. We find that people are indeed more likely than chance to indicate that local deities care about punishing theft, murder, and deceit. This effect is stable even after holding beliefs about explicitly moralistic deities constant. Additionally, we take a close look at data collected among Hadza foragers and find two of their deities to be morally interested. There is no evidence to suggest that this effect is due to direct missionary contact. We posit that the “moralization bias of gods’ minds” is part of a widespread but variable religious phenotype, and a candidate mechanism that contributes to the well-recognized association between religion and cooperation.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"69 1","pages":"38 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion Brain & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006291","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

ABSTRACT There are compelling reasons to expect that cognitively representing any active, powerful deity motivates cooperative behavior. One mechanism underlying this association could be a cognitive bias toward generally attributing moral concern to anthropomorphic agents. If humans cognitively represent the minds of deities and humans in the same way, and if human agents are generally conceptualized as having moral concern, a broad tendency to attribute moral concern—a “moralization bias”—to supernatural deities follows. Using data from 2,228 individuals in 15 different field sites, we test for the existence of such a bias. We find that people are indeed more likely than chance to indicate that local deities care about punishing theft, murder, and deceit. This effect is stable even after holding beliefs about explicitly moralistic deities constant. Additionally, we take a close look at data collected among Hadza foragers and find two of their deities to be morally interested. There is no evidence to suggest that this effect is due to direct missionary contact. We posit that the “moralization bias of gods’ minds” is part of a widespread but variable religious phenotype, and a candidate mechanism that contributes to the well-recognized association between religion and cooperation.
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
神的道德偏见:一个跨文化测试
有令人信服的理由认为,认知上代表任何活跃的、强大的神都会激发合作行为。这种关联背后的一个机制可能是一种认知偏见,即人们普遍将道德关注归因于拟人行为体。如果人类在认知上以同样的方式代表神和人类的思想,如果人类行为主体通常被概念化为具有道德关注,那么将道德关注(一种“道德化偏见”)归因于超自然的神的普遍倾向就随之而来了。使用来自15个不同现场的2228个人的数据,我们测试了这种偏差的存在。我们发现,人们确实比偶然更有可能表明,当地的神关心惩罚盗窃、谋杀和欺骗。这种效果是稳定的,即使持有明确的道德神的信仰不变。此外,我们仔细研究了从哈扎族采集者中收集的数据,发现他们的两个神灵在道德上是有兴趣的。没有证据表明这种影响是由于传教士的直接接触。我们认为,“神的道德偏见”是广泛但多变的宗教表型的一部分,也是促成宗教与合作之间公认的联系的候选机制。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.60%
发文量
93
期刊最新文献
Autonomous neural network activation during religious worship experiences using heart rate variability measurements The role of religion in adolescent mental health: faith as a moderator of the relationship between distrust and depression Religion evolving: applying system theory to a case of blood libel Religion without scare quotes: cognitive science of religion and the humanities Steps towards a more holistic, dynamic and integrative approach to the evolution of religious systems
×
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