Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006286
E. Kundtová Klocová, M. Lang, P. Maňo, R. Kundt, D. Xygalatas
ABSTRACT Research testing evolutionary models of religious morality shows that supernatural beliefs in moralizing gods positively affect prosociality. However, the effects of beliefs related to local supernatural agents have not been extensively explored. Drawing from a Mauritian Hindu sample, we investigated the effects of beliefs and practices related to two different types of local supernatural agents (spirits of the deceased unconcerned with morality) on preferential resources allocation to receivers differing in geographical and social closeness to participants. These spirits are ambiguously linked to either ancestor worship or sorcery practice. Previous studies suggested that sorcery beliefs erode social bonds and trust, but such research is often limited by social stigma and missing relevant comparison with other beliefs. To overcome these limitations, we used nuanced free-list data to discriminate between the two modes of spirit beliefs and tested how each contributes to decision-making in economic games (Random Allocation, Dictator). Expressing sorcery beliefs together with performing rituals addressed to the spirits was associated with greater probability of rule-breaking for selfish/parochial outcomes in the Random Allocation Game (compared to ancestor worship). No difference in money allocations was found in the Dictator Game.
{"title":"Cigarettes for the dead: effects of sorcery beliefs on parochial prosociality in Mauritius","authors":"E. Kundtová Klocová, M. Lang, P. Maňo, R. Kundt, D. Xygalatas","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006286","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Research testing evolutionary models of religious morality shows that supernatural beliefs in moralizing gods positively affect prosociality. However, the effects of beliefs related to local supernatural agents have not been extensively explored. Drawing from a Mauritian Hindu sample, we investigated the effects of beliefs and practices related to two different types of local supernatural agents (spirits of the deceased unconcerned with morality) on preferential resources allocation to receivers differing in geographical and social closeness to participants. These spirits are ambiguously linked to either ancestor worship or sorcery practice. Previous studies suggested that sorcery beliefs erode social bonds and trust, but such research is often limited by social stigma and missing relevant comparison with other beliefs. To overcome these limitations, we used nuanced free-list data to discriminate between the two modes of spirit beliefs and tested how each contributes to decision-making in economic games (Random Allocation, Dictator). Expressing sorcery beliefs together with performing rituals addressed to the spirits was associated with greater probability of rule-breaking for selfish/parochial outcomes in the Random Allocation Game (compared to ancestor worship). No difference in money allocations was found in the Dictator Game.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"156 1","pages":"116 - 131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79864786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006287
Adam Baimel, C. Apicella, Q. Atkinson, Alexander H. Bolyanatz, Emma Cohen, C. Handley, J. Henrich, E. Kundtová Klocová, M. Lang, Carolyn K. Lesogorol, Sarah Mathew, R. McNamara, Cristina Moya, A. Norenzayan, Caitlyn D. Placek, Monserrat Soler, Tom Vardy, Jonathan L. Weigel, A. Willard, D. Xygalatas, B. Purzycki
ABSTRACT The existential security hypothesis predicts that in the absence of more successful secular institutions, people will be attracted to religion when they are materially insecure. Most assessments, however, employ data sampled at a state-level with a focus on world religions. Using individual-level data collected in societies of varied community sizes with diverse religious traditions including animism, shamanism, polytheism, and monotheism, we conducted a systematic cross-cultural test (N = 1820; 14 societies) of the relationship between material insecurity (indexed by food insecurity) and religious commitment (indexed by both beliefs and practices). Moreover, we examined the relationship between material security and individuals’ commitment to two types of deities (moralistic and local), thus providing the first simultaneous test of the existential security hypothesis across co-existing traditions. Our results indicate that while material insecurity is associated with greater commitment to moralistic deities, it predicts less commitment to local deity traditions.
{"title":"Material insecurity predicts greater commitment to moralistic and less commitment to local deities: a cross-cultural investigation","authors":"Adam Baimel, C. Apicella, Q. Atkinson, Alexander H. Bolyanatz, Emma Cohen, C. Handley, J. Henrich, E. Kundtová Klocová, M. Lang, Carolyn K. Lesogorol, Sarah Mathew, R. McNamara, Cristina Moya, A. Norenzayan, Caitlyn D. Placek, Monserrat Soler, Tom Vardy, Jonathan L. Weigel, A. Willard, D. Xygalatas, B. Purzycki","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006287","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The existential security hypothesis predicts that in the absence of more successful secular institutions, people will be attracted to religion when they are materially insecure. Most assessments, however, employ data sampled at a state-level with a focus on world religions. Using individual-level data collected in societies of varied community sizes with diverse religious traditions including animism, shamanism, polytheism, and monotheism, we conducted a systematic cross-cultural test (N = 1820; 14 societies) of the relationship between material insecurity (indexed by food insecurity) and religious commitment (indexed by both beliefs and practices). Moreover, we examined the relationship between material security and individuals’ commitment to two types of deities (moralistic and local), thus providing the first simultaneous test of the existential security hypothesis across co-existing traditions. Our results indicate that while material insecurity is associated with greater commitment to moralistic deities, it predicts less commitment to local deity traditions.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"12 1","pages":"4 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88545749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2021547
R. Fischer
The lead article provides personal re fl ections by an author team reporting on their admittedly impressive research journey. My commentary will focus on two interrelated points: a) the need for improving knowledge transfer and communication of previous lessons learnt by cross-cultural researchers and b) the importance of cultural context for conceptualizing and researching religion, morality, and evolution. I comment on these points because of their importance for improving current standards of cultural evolutionary research. the insights by team, it seems researchers problems when venturing of into shortcomings collaboration
{"title":"Cultural lessons missed and learnt about religion and culture","authors":"R. Fischer","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2021547","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2021547","url":null,"abstract":"The lead article provides personal re fl ections by an author team reporting on their admittedly impressive research journey. My commentary will focus on two interrelated points: a) the need for improving knowledge transfer and communication of previous lessons learnt by cross-cultural researchers and b) the importance of cultural context for conceptualizing and researching religion, morality, and evolution. I comment on these points because of their importance for improving current standards of cultural evolutionary research. the insights by team, it seems researchers problems when venturing of into shortcomings collaboration","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"45 1","pages":"212 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77271072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006293
M. Stagnaro, Duncan N. E. Stibbard-Hawkes, C. Apicella
ABSTRACT Humans’ willingness to bear costs to benefit others is an evolutionary puzzle. Cultural group selection proposes a possible answer to this puzzle—cooperative norms and institutions proliferate due to group-level benefits. For instance, belief in knowledgeable, moralizing deities is theorized to decrease selfishness and favoritism through threat of supernatural punishment. Similarly, norms of fairness and cooperation are theorized to have coevolved with engagement in markets, which necessitate anonymous exchanges. We investigate these theories among the Tanzanian Hadza who, until recently, have had minimal exposure to markets or major world religions. Engagement with Western tourists, village markets, and Christian missionaries is increasingly leading researchers to ask how such interactions have affected cooperative behavior. We interviewed 172 Hadza from 15 camps varying in market proximity, and measured cooperative decision-making using economic games. We find that exposure to missionaries is associated with increased belief in a knowledgeable and punitive deity, with mixed evidence that these beliefs, in turn, affect game play. In contrast, we find some evidence that those living in market-adjacent regions exhibit less in-group favoritism when cooperating. These results support the claim that market-norms, and to some degree religious beliefs, facilitate greater cooperation and fairness in social interactions.
{"title":"Do religious and market-based institutions promote cooperation in Hadza hunter-gatherers?","authors":"M. Stagnaro, Duncan N. E. Stibbard-Hawkes, C. Apicella","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006293","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Humans’ willingness to bear costs to benefit others is an evolutionary puzzle. Cultural group selection proposes a possible answer to this puzzle—cooperative norms and institutions proliferate due to group-level benefits. For instance, belief in knowledgeable, moralizing deities is theorized to decrease selfishness and favoritism through threat of supernatural punishment. Similarly, norms of fairness and cooperation are theorized to have coevolved with engagement in markets, which necessitate anonymous exchanges. We investigate these theories among the Tanzanian Hadza who, until recently, have had minimal exposure to markets or major world religions. Engagement with Western tourists, village markets, and Christian missionaries is increasingly leading researchers to ask how such interactions have affected cooperative behavior. We interviewed 172 Hadza from 15 camps varying in market proximity, and measured cooperative decision-making using economic games. We find that exposure to missionaries is associated with increased belief in a knowledgeable and punitive deity, with mixed evidence that these beliefs, in turn, affect game play. In contrast, we find some evidence that those living in market-adjacent regions exhibit less in-group favoritism when cooperating. These results support the claim that market-norms, and to some degree religious beliefs, facilitate greater cooperation and fairness in social interactions.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"72 1","pages":"171 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80439155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2021549
J. Jackson
doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00062 Lonner, W. J. (2015). Half a century of cross-cultural psychology: A grateful coda. American Psychologist, 70(8), 804– 814. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039454 Malpass, R. S. (1977). Theory and method in cross-cultural psychology. American Psychologist, 32(12), 1069–1079. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.12.1069 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Matsumoto, D., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (Eds.) (2010). Cross-Cultural Research Methods in psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779381. Pe-Pua, R. (1989). Pagtatanong-tanong: A cross-cultural research method. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(89)90003-5 Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. A. (2000). Sikolohiyang pilipino (Filipino psychology): A legacy of virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00054 Poortinga, Y. H., & Van De Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining Cross-Cultural Differences: Bias Analysis and Beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(3), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002187018003001 Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.53.10.1101 Serpell, R. (1979). How specific are perceptual skills? A cross-cultural study of pattern reproduction. British Journal of Psychology, 70(3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb01706.x Smith, P. B., Fischer, R., Vignoles, V. L., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Understanding social psychology across cultures: Engaging with others in a changing world (second edition). SAGE. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research / Fons van de vijver, kwok leung. Sage Publications. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031001004 van De Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1982). Cross-Cultural generalization and universality. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 13(4), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002182013004001 van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data Analysis for cross-cultural research (1 edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.x Yang, K.-S. (2000). Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology. Asian Journ
doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00062 Lonner, W. J.(2015)。半个世纪的跨文化心理学:一个感恩的结尾。美国心理学家，70(8)，804 - 814。https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039454马尔帕斯，r.s.(1977)。跨文化心理学的理论与方法。美国心理学家，32(12)，1069-1079。https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.12.1069 Markus, h.r, and Kitayama, S.(1991)。文化与自我:对认知、情感和动机的影响。心理医学杂志，2008(2)，229 - 229。https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Matsumoto, D, and Van de Vijver, F. J.(编)(2010)。心理学中的跨文化研究方法。剑桥大学出版社。https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779381。培培，R.(1989)。Pagtatanong-tanong:跨文化研究方法。国际文化关系学报，13(2)，147-163。https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(89)90003-5 Pe-Pua, R.， & Protacio-Marcelino, E. A.(2000)。Sikolohiyang pilipino(菲律宾心理学):virgilio G. Enriquez的遗产。社会心理学报，3(1)，49-71。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00054 Poortinga, y.h.， and Van De Vijver, f.j.r.(1987)。解释跨文化差异:偏见分析及超越。心理学报，18(3)，259-282。https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002187018003001西格尔，M. H.，隆纳，W. J.， &贝瑞，J. W.(1998)。跨文化心理学作为一门学术学科:论行为研究中文化的兴起。美国心理学家，53(10)，1101-1110。https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.53.10.1101 serbell, R.(1979)。感知技能有多具体?模式复制的跨文化研究。心理学报，30(3)，368 - 368。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb01706.x Smith, P. B.， Fischer, R.， Vignoles, V. L.， and Bond, M. H.(2013)。理解跨文化的社会心理学:在不断变化的世界中与他人交往(第二版)。圣人。van de Vijver, F. J. R, and Leung, K.(1997)。跨文化研究的方法与数据分析/冯文德，郭良。圣人的出版物。van de Vijver, F. J. R, and Leung, K.(2000)。文化心理学研究中的方法论问题。心理学报，31(1)，33-51。https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031001004 van De Vijver, F. J. R， & Poortinga, Y. H.(1982)。跨文化概括与普遍性。心理学报，2013(4)，387 - 398。https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002182013004001 van de Vijver, F， & Leung, K.(1997)。跨文化研究方法与数据分析(第1版)。SAGE出版公司Yamagishi, T.， Hashimoto, H.， & Schug, J.(2008)。偏好与策略对特定文化行为的解释。心理科学，19(6)，579-584。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.x杨，k.s。(2000)。单一文化和跨文化的本土方法:通往平衡的全球心理学发展的捷径。社会心理学报，3(3)，241-263。https://doi.org/10.1111/1467 - 839 x。00067
{"title":"Two questions for the cultural evolutionary science of religion","authors":"J. Jackson","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2021549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2021549","url":null,"abstract":"doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00062 Lonner, W. J. (2015). Half a century of cross-cultural psychology: A grateful coda. American Psychologist, 70(8), 804– 814. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039454 Malpass, R. S. (1977). Theory and method in cross-cultural psychology. American Psychologist, 32(12), 1069–1079. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.12.1069 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Matsumoto, D., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (Eds.) (2010). Cross-Cultural Research Methods in psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779381. Pe-Pua, R. (1989). Pagtatanong-tanong: A cross-cultural research method. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(89)90003-5 Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. A. (2000). Sikolohiyang pilipino (Filipino psychology): A legacy of virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00054 Poortinga, Y. H., & Van De Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining Cross-Cultural Differences: Bias Analysis and Beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(3), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002187018003001 Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.53.10.1101 Serpell, R. (1979). How specific are perceptual skills? A cross-cultural study of pattern reproduction. British Journal of Psychology, 70(3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb01706.x Smith, P. B., Fischer, R., Vignoles, V. L., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Understanding social psychology across cultures: Engaging with others in a changing world (second edition). SAGE. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research / Fons van de vijver, kwok leung. Sage Publications. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031001004 van De Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1982). Cross-Cultural generalization and universality. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 13(4), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002182013004001 van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data Analysis for cross-cultural research (1 edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.x Yang, K.-S. (2000). Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology. Asian Journ","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"61 1","pages":"216 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81430661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-31DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2035800
Michael Rihs, F. Mast, M. Hartmann
ABSTRACT Most Christians in Western cultures associate God with upper space and devil with lower space. Measuring this spatial association captures the implicit metaphorical representations of religious concepts. Previous studies have shown that implicit measurements of the belief in God increase when people are confronted with their own mortality. Here we investigated the effect of mortality salience on implicit metaphorical representations of religiosity. Using a repeated measurement design, we found that implicit associations between God-up and devil-down increase when people think about their own death, but not when they think about a tooth treatment (control condition). The effect was moderated by self-esteem; only people with low and medium self-esteem were influenced by mortality salience. Our results show that mortality salience automatically activates religious contents and their cognitive representations that embody these abstract contents.
{"title":"God is up and devil is down: mortality salience increases implicit spatial-religious associations","authors":"Michael Rihs, F. Mast, M. Hartmann","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2035800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2035800","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Most Christians in Western cultures associate God with upper space and devil with lower space. Measuring this spatial association captures the implicit metaphorical representations of religious concepts. Previous studies have shown that implicit measurements of the belief in God increase when people are confronted with their own mortality. Here we investigated the effect of mortality salience on implicit metaphorical representations of religiosity. Using a repeated measurement design, we found that implicit associations between God-up and devil-down increase when people think about their own death, but not when they think about a tooth treatment (control condition). The effect was moderated by self-esteem; only people with low and medium self-esteem were influenced by mortality salience. Our results show that mortality salience automatically activates religious contents and their cognitive representations that embody these abstract contents.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"1 1","pages":"271 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90296906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-15DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023622
Philip R. Jenkins
Recent technological advances have greatly increased life expectancy and cut infant mortality to a tiny fraction of its historic levels, making these norms no longer necessary for societal survival. These norms require repres-sing strong natural urges, but, since they present traditional norms as absolute values, most religions strongly resist change. The resulting tension, together with the fact that rising existential security has made people less dependent on religion, opened the way for an exodus from religion. His argument, nutshell, modern to autonomy, self-expression, and individual control over their bodies, sexuality and intimate relationships. Religions typically seek to regulate reproductive behavior, promote fertility, and defend traditional norms around sex, marriage and gender roles. choices,
{"title":"Moving forward from “Fertility and Faith”","authors":"Philip R. Jenkins","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023622","url":null,"abstract":"Recent technological advances have greatly increased life expectancy and cut infant mortality to a tiny fraction of its historic levels, making these norms no longer necessary for societal survival. These norms require repres-sing strong natural urges, but, since they present traditional norms as absolute values, most religions strongly resist change. The resulting tension, together with the fact that rising existential security has made people less dependent on religion, opened the way for an exodus from religion. His argument, nutshell, modern to autonomy, self-expression, and individual control over their bodies, sexuality and intimate relationships. Religions typically seek to regulate reproductive behavior, promote fertility, and defend traditional norms around sex, marriage and gender roles. choices,","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"6 1","pages":"437 - 444"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82021097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-15DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023620
Nitzan Peri-Rotem
Contemporary Japan. Journal of Religion in Japan, 1(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/221183412X628370 Schaffnit, S. B., & Sear, R. (2017). Supportive families versus support from families: The decision to have a child in the Netherlands. Demographic Research, 37, 414–454. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.14 Schmitt, D. P., & Fuller, R. C. (2015). On the varieties of sexual experience: Cross-cultural links between religiosity and human mating strategies. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rel/7/4/314/ Sear, R., & Coall, D. (2011). How much does family matter? Cooperative breeding and the demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 37(Suppl 1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00379.x Shaver, J. H., Power, E. A., Purzycki, B. G., Watts, J., Sear, R., Shenk, M. K., Sosis, R., & Bulbulia, J. A. (2020). Church attendance and alloparenting: An analysis of fertility, social support and child development among English mothers, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1805), 20190428. https://doi. org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0428 Shaver, J. H., Sibley, C. G., Sosis, R., Galbraith, D., & Bulbulia, J. (2019). Alloparenting and religious fertility: A test of the religious alloparenting hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. evolhumbehav.2019.01.004 Snell, K. D. M. (2017). The rise of living alone and loneliness in history. Social History, 42(1), 2–28. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03071022.2017.1256093 Sosis, R. (2019). The building blocks of religious systems: Approaching religion as a complex adaptive system. In G. Y. Georgiev, J. M. Smart, C. L. Flores Martinez, &M. Price (Eds.), Evolution, development & complexity: Multiscale models of complex adaptive systems (pp. 421–449). Springer. Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories. http://www.sidalc.net/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=sibe01. xis&method=post&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=007580 Strassmann, B. I., Kurapati, N. T., Hug, B. F., Burke, E. E., Gillespie, B. W., Karafet, T. M., & Hammer, M. F. (2012). Religion as a means to assure paternity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(25), 9781–9785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110442109 Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi. org/10.1086/406755 Turke, P. W. (1989). Evolution and the demand for children. Population and Development Review, 15(1), 61–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1973405 Tuttle, R. H. (1992). The third chimpanzee: The evolution and future of the human animal. By Jared Diamond. New York: HarperCollins. 1992. 407 pp. ISBN 0-06-018307-1. $25.00 (cloth). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 89(3), 407–408. Van Slyke, J. A., & Szocik, K. (2020). Sexual selection and religion: Can the evolution of religion be explained in terms of mating strategies? Archive for the Psychology of Religio
当代日本。《中国宗教研究》，第1期，7-36页。https://doi.org/10.1163/221183412X628370 Schaffnit, S. B.和Sear, R.(2017)。支持家庭与来自家庭的支持:在荷兰生孩子的决定。人口研究，37,414-454。https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.14 Schmitt, D. P， & Fuller, R. C.(2015)。论性经验的多样性:宗教信仰与人类交配策略之间的跨文化联系。宗教与灵性心理学。https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rel/7/4/314/ Sear, R.， & colall, D.(2011)。家庭有多重要?合作育种与人口转变。人口与发展评论，37(增编1)，81-112。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00379.x Shaver, J. H.， Power, E. A.， Purzycki, B. G.， Watts, J.， Sear, R.， Shenk, M. K.， Sosis, R.， and bulbullia, J. A.(2020)。英国母亲的生育能力、社会支持和儿童发展分析。英国皇家学会哲学学报B:生物科学，375(1805)，20190428。https://doi。刘建军，刘建军，刘建军，等。(2019)。异源养育与宗教生育:宗教异源养育假说的检验。人类进化与行为，40(3)，315-324。https://doi.org/10.1016/j。Snell, k.d.m.(2017)。历史上独居和孤独的兴起。社会历史，42(1)，2-28。https://doi.org/10。1080/03071022.2017.1256093 Sosis, R.(2019)。宗教系统的构建模块:将宗教视为一个复杂的适应系统。格奥尔基耶夫，J. M.斯玛特，C. L.弗洛雷斯·马丁内斯，M.。Price(编)，进化，发展和复杂性:复杂适应系统的多尺度模型(第421-449页)。施普林格。斯特恩斯，s.c.(1992)。生命史的进化。http://www.sidalc.net/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=sibe01。xis&method=post&formato=2&悬臂=1& expression =mfn=007580 Strassmann, b.i, Kurapati, n.t.， Hug, b.f.， Burke, e.e.， Gillespie, b.w.， Karafet, t.m.， Hammer, m.f.(2012)。宗教是确保父权的一种手段。国家科学院学报，109(25)，9781-9785。https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110442109特里夫斯，r.l.(1971)。互惠利他主义的进化。生物学季刊，46(1)，35-57。https://doi。Turke, P. W.(1989)。进化和对儿童的需求。人口与发展评论，15(1)，61-90。https://doi.org/10.2307/1973405塔特尔，r.h.(1992)。第三部黑猩猩:人类动物的进化与未来。杰瑞德·戴蒙德著。纽约:哈珀柯林斯出版社。1992. 407页，ISBN 0-06-018307-1。25.00美元(布)。中国生物医学工程学报，30(3)，397 - 398。Van Slyke, J. A.和Szocik, K.(2020)。性选择与宗教:宗教的进化可以用交配策略来解释吗?宗教心理学文献，42(1)，123-141。https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0084672420909460 Van Slyke, J. A.， &Wasemiller, A.(2017)。短期策略与宗教信仰负相关:一所小型基督教文理学院宗教信仰的进化变量探索。进化心理科学，3(3)，253-260。https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0093-9沃林P.(1921年10月28日)。亨利·福特说，历史是胡扯，生活就像一辆福特汽车一样简单。纽约时报。威尔逊，e.o.(1999)。一致性:知识的统一。《古书》，M.威尔逊和M.戴利(1997)。芝加哥社区的预期寿命、经济不平等、凶杀和生育时间。中华医学杂志，314(7)，1271-1271。https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7089.1271
{"title":"Global fertility and the future of religion: addressing empirical and theoretical challenges","authors":"Nitzan Peri-Rotem","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023620","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary Japan. Journal of Religion in Japan, 1(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/221183412X628370 Schaffnit, S. B., & Sear, R. (2017). Supportive families versus support from families: The decision to have a child in the Netherlands. Demographic Research, 37, 414–454. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.14 Schmitt, D. P., & Fuller, R. C. (2015). On the varieties of sexual experience: Cross-cultural links between religiosity and human mating strategies. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rel/7/4/314/ Sear, R., & Coall, D. (2011). How much does family matter? Cooperative breeding and the demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 37(Suppl 1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00379.x Shaver, J. H., Power, E. A., Purzycki, B. G., Watts, J., Sear, R., Shenk, M. K., Sosis, R., & Bulbulia, J. A. (2020). Church attendance and alloparenting: An analysis of fertility, social support and child development among English mothers, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1805), 20190428. https://doi. org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0428 Shaver, J. H., Sibley, C. G., Sosis, R., Galbraith, D., & Bulbulia, J. (2019). Alloparenting and religious fertility: A test of the religious alloparenting hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. evolhumbehav.2019.01.004 Snell, K. D. M. (2017). The rise of living alone and loneliness in history. Social History, 42(1), 2–28. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03071022.2017.1256093 Sosis, R. (2019). The building blocks of religious systems: Approaching religion as a complex adaptive system. In G. Y. Georgiev, J. M. Smart, C. L. Flores Martinez, &M. Price (Eds.), Evolution, development & complexity: Multiscale models of complex adaptive systems (pp. 421–449). Springer. Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories. http://www.sidalc.net/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=sibe01. xis&method=post&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=007580 Strassmann, B. I., Kurapati, N. T., Hug, B. F., Burke, E. E., Gillespie, B. W., Karafet, T. M., & Hammer, M. F. (2012). Religion as a means to assure paternity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(25), 9781–9785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110442109 Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi. org/10.1086/406755 Turke, P. W. (1989). Evolution and the demand for children. Population and Development Review, 15(1), 61–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1973405 Tuttle, R. H. (1992). The third chimpanzee: The evolution and future of the human animal. By Jared Diamond. New York: HarperCollins. 1992. 407 pp. ISBN 0-06-018307-1. $25.00 (cloth). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 89(3), 407–408. Van Slyke, J. A., & Szocik, K. (2020). Sexual selection and religion: Can the evolution of religion be explained in terms of mating strategies? Archive for the Psychology of Religio","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"96 1","pages":"413 - 417"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85736870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-15DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023619
David Voas
https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2014.982905 Sear, R. (2021). The male breadwinner nuclear family is not the ‘traditional’ human family, and promotion of this myth may have adverse health consequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1827), 20200020. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0020 Sear, R., & Coall, D. (2011). How much does family matter? Cooperative breeding and the demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 37, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00379.x Sear, R., Lawson, D. W., Kaplan, H., & Shenk, M. K. (2016). Understanding variation in human fertility: What can we learn from evolutionary demography? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371 (1692), 20150144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0144 Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.10.001 Shaver, J. H. (2017). Why and how do religious individuals, and some religious groups, achieve higher relative fertility? Religion, Brain & Behavior, 7(4), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2016.1249920 Shaver, J. H., Power, E. A., Purzycki, B. G., Watts, J., Sear, R., Shenk, M. K., Sosis, R., & Bulbulia, J. A. (2020). Church attendance and alloparenting: An analysis of fertility, social support and child development among English mothers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1805), 20190428. https://doi. org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0428 Shaver, J. H., Sibley, C. G., Sosis, R., Galbraith, D., & Bulbulia, J. (2019). Alloparenting and religious fertility: A test of the religious alloparenting hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 315–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.evolhumbehav.2019.01.004 Shenk, M., & Scelza, B. (2012). Paternal investment and status-related child outcomes: Timing of father’s death affects offspring success. Journal of Biosocial Science, 44(5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932012000053 Sosis, R., & Ruffle, B. J. (2003). Religious ritual and cooperation: Testing for a relationship on Israeli religious and secular kibbutzim. Current Anthropology, 44(5), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1086/379260 Spake, L., Schaffnit, S. B., Sear, R., Shenk, M. K., Sosis, R., & Shaver, J. H. (2021). Mother’s partnership status and allomothering networks in the United Kingdom and United States. Social Sciences, 10(5), 182. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/socsci10050182 Spake, L., Watts, J., Hassan, A., Schaffnit, S., Lynch, R., Sosis, R., Sear, R., Shenk, M., & Shaver, J. H. (in preparation). Kin orientation in religious and non-religious women: A potential pathway to explain increased fertility of religious groups in low-fertility societies. Stack, C. B. (1983). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a black community (60837th edition). Basic Books. Ukwatta, S. (2010). Sri Lankan female do
https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2014.982905 Sear, R.(2021)。男性养家糊口的核心家庭不是“传统的”人类家庭，宣扬这一神话可能会对健康产生不利影响。英国皇家学会学报B:生物科学，376(1827)，20200020。https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0020 Sear, R.， & colall, D.(2011)。家庭有多重要?合作育种与人口转变。人口与发展评论，37,81-112。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00379.x searr .， Lawson, D. W.， Kaplan, H.， & Shenk, M. K.(2016)。理解人类生育能力的变化:我们能从进化人口学中学到什么?生物学报，39(1)，201504。http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0144 Sear, R.， & Mace, R.(2008)。谁让孩子们活下来?亲属关系对儿童生存影响的综述。进化与人类行为，29(1)，1 - 18。https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.10.001 Shaver, j.h.(2017)。宗教人士和一些宗教团体为什么以及如何实现更高的相对生育率?心理学报，7(4)，324-327。https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2016.1249920 Shaver, J. H.， Power, E. A.， Purzycki, B. G.， Watts, J.， Sear, R.， Shenk, M. K.， Sosis, R.， and bulbullia, J. A.(2020)。英国母亲的生育能力、社会支持和儿童发展分析。生物科学学报，39(5)，393 - 394。https://doi。刘建军，刘建军，刘建军，等。(2019)。异源养育与宗教生育:宗教异源养育假说的检验。人类进化与行为，40(3)，315-324。申克，M.， & Scelza, B. (2012). [j] . evolhumbehaviour .2019.01.004父亲投资与地位相关的子女结局:父亲死亡的时间影响后代的成功。生物学报，44(5)，549-569。https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932012000053 Sosis, R.， & Ruffle, b.j.(2003)。宗教仪式与合作:以色列宗教与世俗基布兹关系的检验。当代人类学，44(5)，713-722。https://doi.org/10.1086/379260 spoke, L.， Schaffnit, S. B.， Sear, R.， Shenk, M. K, Sosis, R.， and Shaver, J. H.(2021)。母亲在英国和美国的合伙人身份和允许其他网络。社会科学，10(5)，182。https://doi.org/ 10.3390/socsci10050182 speaker, L.， Watts, J.， Hassan, A.， Schaffnit, S.， Lynch, R.， Sosis, R.， searr .， Shenk, M.，和Shaver, J. H.(准备中)。宗教和非宗教妇女的亲属取向:解释低生育率社会中宗教群体生育率增加的潜在途径。斯塔克，c.b.(1983)。《我们所有的亲属:黑人社区的生存策略》(60837版)。基本的书。Ukwatta, S.(2010)。斯里兰卡的海外女家庭佣工:在远方照顾孩子。人口研究，27(2)，107-131。https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-010-9035-0沃克，r.s.，格文，M，汉堡，O，和汉密尔顿，m.j.(2008)。人类和其他灵长类动物后代的数量和大小之间的权衡。中国生物医学工程学报，25(6)，827-834。https:// doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1511 Zelinsky, W.(1971)。流动性转变假说。地理论评，61(2)，219-249。https://doi.org/ 10.2307/213996
{"title":"Linking the fertility and secular transitions","authors":"David Voas","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023619","url":null,"abstract":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2014.982905 Sear, R. (2021). The male breadwinner nuclear family is not the ‘traditional’ human family, and promotion of this myth may have adverse health consequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1827), 20200020. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0020 Sear, R., & Coall, D. (2011). How much does family matter? Cooperative breeding and the demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 37, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00379.x Sear, R., Lawson, D. W., Kaplan, H., & Shenk, M. K. (2016). Understanding variation in human fertility: What can we learn from evolutionary demography? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371 (1692), 20150144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0144 Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.10.001 Shaver, J. H. (2017). Why and how do religious individuals, and some religious groups, achieve higher relative fertility? Religion, Brain & Behavior, 7(4), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2016.1249920 Shaver, J. H., Power, E. A., Purzycki, B. G., Watts, J., Sear, R., Shenk, M. K., Sosis, R., & Bulbulia, J. A. (2020). Church attendance and alloparenting: An analysis of fertility, social support and child development among English mothers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1805), 20190428. https://doi. org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0428 Shaver, J. H., Sibley, C. G., Sosis, R., Galbraith, D., & Bulbulia, J. (2019). Alloparenting and religious fertility: A test of the religious alloparenting hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 315–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.evolhumbehav.2019.01.004 Shenk, M., & Scelza, B. (2012). Paternal investment and status-related child outcomes: Timing of father’s death affects offspring success. Journal of Biosocial Science, 44(5), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932012000053 Sosis, R., & Ruffle, B. J. (2003). Religious ritual and cooperation: Testing for a relationship on Israeli religious and secular kibbutzim. Current Anthropology, 44(5), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1086/379260 Spake, L., Schaffnit, S. B., Sear, R., Shenk, M. K., Sosis, R., & Shaver, J. H. (2021). Mother’s partnership status and allomothering networks in the United Kingdom and United States. Social Sciences, 10(5), 182. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/socsci10050182 Spake, L., Watts, J., Hassan, A., Schaffnit, S., Lynch, R., Sosis, R., Sear, R., Shenk, M., & Shaver, J. H. (in preparation). Kin orientation in religious and non-religious women: A potential pathway to explain increased fertility of religious groups in low-fertility societies. Stack, C. B. (1983). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a black community (60837th edition). Basic Books. Ukwatta, S. (2010). Sri Lankan female do","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"50 1","pages":"425 - 430"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91356240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-15DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023617
R. Lynch, M. Shenk, J. Shaver, L. Spake
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(51), 19111–19115. McLeod, H. (1974). Class and religion in the Late Victorian City. Croom Helm. Roof, W. C. (1993). A generation of seekers: The spiritual journeys of the baby boom generation. Harper. Wuthnow, R. (2007). After the baby boomers: How twentyand thirty-somethings are shaping the future of American religion. Princeton University Press. Zuckerman, P., Galen, L., & Pasquale, F. (2016). The nonreligious: Understanding secular people and societies. OUP.
{"title":"Fertility and faith: insights from human behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, and life history theory","authors":"R. Lynch, M. Shenk, J. Shaver, L. Spake","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2021.2023617","url":null,"abstract":"National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(51), 19111–19115. McLeod, H. (1974). Class and religion in the Late Victorian City. Croom Helm. Roof, W. C. (1993). A generation of seekers: The spiritual journeys of the baby boom generation. Harper. Wuthnow, R. (2007). After the baby boomers: How twentyand thirty-somethings are shaping the future of American religion. Princeton University Press. Zuckerman, P., Galen, L., & Pasquale, F. (2016). The nonreligious: Understanding secular people and societies. OUP.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":"137 1","pages":"406 - 413"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72705361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：