Test of the Social Buffering Hypothesis in the Context of Religious Disagreements

Abstract

This article examines the social buffering hypothesis of cultural humility in the context of religious offenses. In this study, participants ( N = 244) rated their cultural humility in terms of differing religious values and beliefs as well as their moral foundations in determining what is right or wrong. They then recalled an offense or hurt attributed to religious disagreements and indicated their motivations for forgiving the offender. Lower endorsement of individuating moral foundations predicted greater unforgiveness; however, cultural humility softened this relationship between individuating moral foundations and unforgiveness. When cultural humility was higher, participants were less likely to report unforgiveness motivations toward the religious offender, even if their individuating moral foundation scores were lower. Results from this study support the social buffering hypothesis of humility. Namely, individuals with higher levels of cultural humility demonstrate a greater capacity to maintain relationships during stressful religious disagreements by regulating intuitive and affective moral positions, particularly those that have previously been linked to social dominance or moral disinterest. We conclude this study by discussing limitations, practical applications, and areas for future research.

Cultural humility: Conclusion to the special issue

“…We could use one of several value taxonomies to evaluate this situation. From the perspective of moral foundations theory (see McLaughlin et al, 2019), students higher in individualizing values ought to be more inclined to side with the student against the potential for exploitation from powerful systems. In contrast, students higher in binding values ought to be more attuned to threats that individuals pose against the stability and cohesion of the group.…”