TY - JOUR
T1 - The moralization bias of gods’ minds
T2 - a cross-cultural test
AU - Purzycki, Benjamin Grant
AU - Willard, Aiyana K.
AU - Klocová, Eva Kundtová
AU - Apicella, Coren
AU - Atkinson, Quentin
AU - Bolyanatz, Alexander
AU - Cohen, Emma
AU - Handley, Carla
AU - Henrich, Joseph
AU - Lang, Martin
AU - Lesorogol, Carolyn
AU - Mathew, Sarah
AU - McNamara, Rita A.
AU - Moya, Cristina
AU - Norenzayan, Ara
AU - Placek, Caitlyn
AU - Soler, Montserrat
AU - Vardy, Tom
AU - Weigel, Jonathan
AU - Xygalatas, Dimitris
AU - Ross, Cody T.
N1 - Funding Information:
The Cultural Evolution of Religion Research Consortium (CERC) was supported by a SSHRC partnership grant (#895-2011-1009) and the John Templeton Foundation (grant ID 40603). BGP and CTR acknowledge support from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and BGP acknowledges support from the Consequences of Formal Education for Science and Religion Project grant that was funded by the John Templeton Foundation and the Issachar Fund. This work was made possible by the Cultural Evolution of Religion Research Consortium (CERC), funded by a SSHRC partnership grant and the John Templeton Foundation awarded to J.H. and A.N.; B.G.P. and C.T.R. acknowledge support from the Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. We thank Adam Barnett and Nick Stagnaro as well as the manuscript’s two reviewers and Joseph Bulbulia for their helpful feedback.
Funding Information:
This work was made possible by the Cultural Evolution of Religion Research Consortium (CERC), funded by a SSHRC partnership grant and the John Templeton Foundation awarded to J.H. and A.N.; B.G.P. and C.T.R. acknowledge support from the Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. We thank Adam Barnett and Nick Stagnaro as well as the manuscript’s two reviewers and Joseph Bulbulia for their helpful feedback.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Supernatural punishment
KW - cognitive science of religion
KW - gods’ minds
KW - morality
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125073354&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85125073354&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006291
DO - 10.1080/2153599X.2021.2006291
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85125073354
SN - 2153-599X
VL - 12
SP - 38
EP - 60
JO - Religion, Brain and Behavior
JF - Religion, Brain and Behavior
IS - 1-2
ER -