Religious Pro-Sociality? Experimental Evidence from a Sample of 766 Spaniards

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between several personal religion-related variables and social behaviour, using three paradigmatic economic games: the dictator (DG), ultimatum (UG), and trust (TG) games. A large carefully designed sample of the urban adult population in Granada (Spain) is employed (N = 766). From participants' decisions in these games we obtain measures of altruism, bargaining behaviour and sense of fairness/equality, trust, and positive reciprocity. Three dimensions of religiosity are examined: (i) religious denomination; (ii) intensity of religiosity, measured by active participation at church services; and (iii) conversion out into a different denomination than the one raised in. The major results are: (i) individuals with “no religion” made decisions closer to rational selfish behaviour in the DG and the UG compared to those who affiliate with a “standard” religious denomination; (ii) among Catholics, intensity of religiosity is the key variable that affects social behaviour insofar as religiously-active individuals are generally more pro-social than non-active ones; and (iii) the religion raised in seems to have no effect on pro-sociality, beyond the effect of the current measures of religiosity. Importantly, behaviour in the TG is not predicted by any of the religion-related variables we analyse. While the results partially support the notion of religious pro-sociality, on the other hand, they also highlight the importance of closely examining the multidimensional nature of both religiosity and pro-social behaviour.

Location, Location, Location: Effects of Cross-Religious Primes on Prosocial Behavior

“…In other words, although religious people portray or see themselves as better people, they do not actually behave any better. Although a few studies have shown some correlation between particular aspects of religiosity and prosocial behavior (Branas-Garza, Espín, & Neuman, 2014;Fehr, Fischbacher, von Rosenbladt, Schupp, & Wagner, 2003;Paciotti et al, 2011;Perrin, 2000;Sosis & Ruffle, 2003, the overwhelming majority of the available evidence suggests otherwise (Anderson, Mellor, & Milyo, 2010;Batson et al, 1999;Batson et al, 1989;Batson et al, 1993;Burris & Jackson, 1999;Darley & Batson, 1973;Eckel & Grossman, 2004;Goldfried & Miner, 2002;Grossman & Parrett, 2011;Jackson & Esses, 1997;Johansson-Stenman, Mahmud, & Martinsson, 2009;Malhotra, 2010;Orbell et al, 1992;Pruckner & Sausgruber, 2009;Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 2003;Tan, 2006).…”

Cooperation and coordination across cultures and contexts: Individual, sociocultural, and contextual factors jointly influence decision making in the volunteer's dilemma game

“…The vast majority of these experiments (including those utilizing social dilemma games) have found no significant relationship between religiosity and prosocial behavior (Ahmed & Salas, , ; Akay et al, ; Anderson et al, ; Anderson & Mellor, ; Annis, , ; Batson et al, ; Chuah et al, ; Eckel & Grossman, ; Grossman & Parrett, ; Hunsberger & Platonow, ; Orbell et al, ; Paciotti et al, ; Tan, ). There has been very little experimental evidence significantly linking religiosity and prosocial choices in social dilemma games (Ahmed, ; Ben‐Ner et al, ; Brañas‐Garza et al, ; Sosis & Ruffle, ), and these studies either did not directly ask participants if they were religious (Ben‐Ner et al, ; Brañas‐Garza et al, ) or they confounded religious prosociality with favoritism toward members of the same religious community (Ahmed, ; Sosis & Ruffle, ; see Galen, ). Our study thus seems to be one of the first social dilemma experiments to clearly show that self‐reported religiosity is associated with greater prosocial behavior.…”

“…On the other hand, it turns out most prior experimental studies have found no significant relationship between religiosity and prosocial behavior in (other) social dilemma games (Ahmed & Salas, , ; Akay, Karabulut, & Martinsson, ; Anderson & Mellor, ; Anderson, Mellor, & Milyo, ; Annis, , ; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, ; Chuah, Hoffmann, Ramasamy, & Tan, ; Eckel & Grossman, ; Grossman & Parrett, ; Hunsberger & Platonow, ; Orbell, Goldman, Mulford, & Dawes, ; Paciotti et al, ; Tan, ). Moreover, the few studies that did find a significant relationship did not directly ask about religiosity (Ben‐Ner, Putterman, Kong, & Magan, ; Brañas‐Garza, Espín, & Neuman, ) or confounded prosociality with in‐group favoritism (Ahmed, ; Sosis & Ruffle, ; see Galen, ). Similarly, it may be that religious participants are no more likely to volunteer in controlled VDG settings that eliminate the many potential confounds (e.g., lack of anonymity) inherent in real‐life volunteering contexts.…”

“…The vast majority of these experiments (including those utilizing social dilemma games) have found no significant relationship between religiosity and prosocial behavior (Ahmed & Salas, 2009Akay et al, 2015;Anderson et al, 2010;Anderson & Mellor, 2009;Annis, 1975Annis, , 1976Batson et al, 1993;Chuah et al, 2014;Eckel & Grossman, 2004;Grossman & Parrett, 2011;Hunsberger & Platonow, 1987;Orbell et al, 1992;Paciotti et al, 2011;Tan, 2006). There has been very little experimental evidence significantly linking religiosity and prosocial choices in social dilemma games (Ahmed, 2009;Ben-Ner et al, 2004;Brañas-Garza et al, 2014;Sosis & Ruffle, 2003), and these studies either did not directly 11 In one variant of the VDG, he found that 82% of women volunteered, compared with just 44% of men. However, with only 11 women and 16 men in that condition, the difference was not statistically significant.…”

“…ask participants if they were religious (Ben-Ner et al, 2004;Brañas-Garza et al, 2014) or they confounded religious prosociality with favoritism toward members of the same religious community (Ahmed, 2009;Sosis & Ruffle, 2003;see Galen, 2012). Our study thus seems to be one of the first social dilemma experiments to clearly show that self-reported religiosity is associated with greater prosocial behavior.…”