A creative destruction approach to replication: Implicit work and sex morality across cultures

Tierney, Warren; Hardy, Jay H.; Ebersole, Charles R.; Viganola, Domenico; Clemente, Elena Giulia; Gordon, Michael D.; Hoogeveen, Suzanne; Haaf, Julia M.; Dreber, Anna; Johannesson, Magnus; Huang, Jason L.; Vaughn, Leigh Ann; DeMarree, Kenneth G.; Igou, Eric R.; Chapman, Hanah A.; Gantman, Ana P.; Vanaman, Matthew; Wylie, Jordan; Storbeck, Justin; Andreychik, Michael R.; McPhetres, Jon; Uhlmann, Eric Luis

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104060

Cited by 51 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 120 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7-8). Similarly, while excessive eating can amount to free-riding in collaborative interactions, puritanical values condemn gluttony even when it is harmless, and prescribe effortful selfdiscipline even when it doesn't benefit other people (Celniker et al, 2020;Hill, 2007;Tierney et al, 2021). In the same vein, strict regulations of music, dance, drinking or feasting, appear, to our modern eyes, as unnecessarily austere restrictions.…”

Section: The Puzzle Of Morality Without Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral disciplining: the cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality

Fitouchi¹,

André²,

Baumard³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do many human societies condemn apparently harmless and pleasurable behaviors, such as lust, gluttony, drinking, drugs, gambling, or even music and dance? Why do they erect temperance, hedonic restraint, sobriety, decency and piety as cardinal moral virtues? While existing accounts consider this puritanical morality as an exception to the cooperative function of moral intuitions, we propose that it stems, like other moral concerns, from moral intuitions targeting cooperative challenges. Specifically, we argue that it emerges in response to a key feature of cooperation, namely that the latter is (ultimately) a long-term strategy, requiring (proximately) the self-control of appetites for immediate gratification. Puritanical moralizations condemn and praise behaviors which, although not intrinsically cooperative or uncooperative, are perceived as affecting people’s propensity to cooperate, by modifying their ability to resist short-term impulses conflicting with cooperative motivations. Drinking, drugs, unruly feasts, dances, and immodest clothing are condemned as stimulating people’s short-term impulses, thus facilitating uncooperative behaviors (e.g. adultery, violence, economic free-riding). Immoderate indulgence in harmless bodily pleasures (e.g. lust, masturbation, gluttony) is perceived as addictively reinforcing short-term impulses, thus making harder the self-control of future temptations to cheat. Moralizations of ascetic temperance, daily self-discipline, and pious ritual observance are perceived as nurturing the self-restraint consubstantial to a cooperative character, able to resist selfish temptations when the latter arise. We review psychological, historical, and ethnographic evidence supporting this account, and discuss its implications regarding the cross-cultural variations and cultural evolution of puritanical norms.

show abstract

Section: The Puzzle Of Morality Without Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral disciplining: the cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality

Fitouchi¹,

André²,

Baumard³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This notion of information gain can be formalized in a Bayesian framework , but it basically follows a simple intuition: especially for original studies with highly surprising effects (i.e., low prior odds) or small sample sizes (i.e., little evidence; little posterior updating) replications can bring about considerable informational gain. The value of intuitions about a priori chances of replication success is corroborated by recent prediction market studies (e.g., Camerer et al, 2018;Dreber et al, 2015;Forsell et al, 2018;Tierney et al, 2021). In these studies, researchers in psychology were asked to estimate and bet money on the outcomes of large-scale replication projects such as Many Labs 2 (R. and the Science and Nature Replications (Camerer et al, 2018).…”

Section: Selectingmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…While the debate is not yet settled (e.g., Shariff et al, 2016;van Elk et al, 2016), caution seems warranted regarding the reliability and robustness of some religious priming effects. Various replications of priming studies failed to find compelling evidence: subtle reminders of religion do not increase risk taking (based on the divine protection hypothesis; Gervais et al, 2020, Kupor et al, 2015, do not decrease grip endurance (based on the sexual and reproductive religiosity model; Hone & McCullough, 2015, Mc-Cullough et al, 2012, religious priming does not increase dictator game allocations (based on the religion and prosociality link; Gomes & McCullough, 2015, Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007, and religious priming does not increase work ethic (based on the implicit puritanism account; Tierney et al, 2021, Uhlmann et al, 2011. In addition, analytical thinking primes do not decrease religiosity (Gervais & Norenzayan, 2012;Sanchez et al, 2017) and threats to personal control do not increase belief in a controlling God (Hoogeveen et al, 2018;Kay et al, 2008).…”

Section: Replication and The Csrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, multi-lab projects can assess the cross-cultural universality or variability plus boundary conditions of some phenomenon. A relevant illustration of such a replication+ approach can be found in the project by Tierney et al (2021), in which a 'creative destruction approach to replication' is adopted. Here, the original hypothesis is not only compared to the null-hypothesis, but also to various alternative theoretically relevant accounts.…”

Section: Selectingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Advancing the Cognitive Science of Religion through Replication and Open Science

Hoogeveen

Elk

2021

JCSR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is a relatively young but prolific field that has offered compelling insights into religious minds and practices.However, many empirical findings within this field are still preliminary and their reliability remains to be determined. In this paper, we first argue that it is crucial to critically evaluate the CSR literature and adopt open science practices and replication research in particular to move the field forward.Second, we highlight the outcomes of previous replications and make suggestions for future replication studies in the CSR, with a particular focus on neuroscience, developmental psychology, and qualitative research. Finally, we provide a 'replication script' with advice on how to select, conduct, and organize replication research. Our approach is illustrated with a 'glimpse behind the scenes' of the recently launched Cross-Cultural Religious Replication Project, in the hope of inspiring scholars of religion to embrace open science and replication in their own research.

show abstract

“…Converging with this historical recurrence, psychological and survey data reveal that a substantial part of the world's population moralizes excessive eating (Mooijman et al, 2018;Ringel & Ditto, 2019), masturbation (Haidt et al, 1993;Helzer & Pizarro, 2011), casual sex (Horberg et al, 2009;Weeden & Kurzban, 2013, alcohol use (Najjar et al, 2016;Poushter, 2014), gambling (Lugo et al, 2013;Poushter, 2014), intemperance (Mooijman et al, 2018), hedonism (Saroglou et al, 2004;Saroglou & Craninx, 2021), and reluctance to needless work (Celniker et al, 2020;Tierney et al, 2021). Why do people, across many societies and historical periods, develop this constellation of puritanical values?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmless bodily pleasures are moralized because they are perceived as reducing self-control and cooperativeness

Fitouchi¹,

André²,

Baumard³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do some people moralize overindulgence in inherently victimless bodily pleasures, such as gluttony, masturbation, drinking, or laziness, when these behaviors appear devoid of any harmful consequences to other people? We test the hypothesis that these moral judgements stem from perceptions that overindulgence alters people’s self-control, thus making them more likely to cheat in cooperative interactions. In an online experiment on 400 American adults, participants judged that a target who was caused to increase his indulgence in bodily pleasures would reduce his self-control and disposition to cooperate. Participants judged, by contrast, that sustained restraint from bodily pleasures over several months would improve a target’s self-control and disposition to cooperate. The effect of indulgence (vs. restraint) on perceived change in cooperativeness was fully mediated by perceived change in self-control. This supports the idea that bodily pleasures are perceived as increasing people’s propensity to cheat because they are perceived as reducing their self-control, which is perceived necessary for cooperative behavior. Finally, the more people perceived indulgence as reducing self-control and cooperativeness, the more they regarded indulgence in victimless bodily pleasures as morally wrong (e.g., masturbation, gluttony, harmless drinking and laziness). These results provide preliminary support for the Moral disciplining theory of puritanism, according to which, although inherently harmless, bodily pleasures are condemned as indirectly facilitating antisocial behaviors through their perceived effect on self-control.

show abstract

A creative destruction approach to replication: Implicit work and sex morality across cultures

Cited by 51 publications

References 120 publications

Moral disciplining: the cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality

Moral disciplining: the cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality

Advancing the Cognitive Science of Religion through Replication and Open Science

Harmless bodily pleasures are moralized because they are perceived as reducing self-control and cooperativeness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About