The religiosity as social value hypothesis: A replication and extension

Abstract

Are religious people psychologically better or worse adjusted than their non-religious counterparts? Hundreds of studies have reported a positive relation between religiosity and psychological adjustment. Recently, however, a comparatively small number of cross-cultural studies has questioned this staple of religiosity research. The latter studies find that religious adjustment benefits are restricted to religious cultures. Gebauer, Sedikides, and Neberich (2012b) suggested the religiosity-as-social-value hypothesis (RASV) as one explanation for those cross-cultural differences. RASV states that, in religious cultures, religiosity possesses much social value, and, as such, religious people will feel particularly good about themselves. In secular cultures, however, religiosity possesses limited social value, and, as such, religious people will feel less good about themselves, if at all. Yet, previous evidence has been inconclusive regarding RASV and regarding cross-cultural differences in religious adjustment benefits more generally. To clarify matters, we conducted three replication studies. We examined the relation between religiosity and self-esteem (the most direct and appropriate adjustment indicator, according to RASV) in a self-report study across 65 countries (N = 2,195,301), an informant-report study across 36 countries (N = 560,264), and another self- report study across 1,932 urban areas from 243 federal states in 18 countries (N = 1,188,536). Moreover, we scrutinized our results against seven, previously untested, alternative explanations. Our results fully and firmly replicated and extended prior evidence for cross-cultural differences in religious adjustment benefits. These cross-cultural differences were best explained by the RASV hypothesis.

To Live Among Like-Minded Others

“…To obtain a benchmark for the size of the effects of P-C personality fit, we also examined the extent to which the fit between person and city religiosity predicted selfesteem. As found previously (Gebauer, Sedikides, Schönbrodt, et al, 2015), there was a significant interactive effect of individual-level and city-level religiosity on selfesteem. The effect size was similar to the sizes of the effects observed for personality traits.…”

“…No previous research has examined the impact of P-C personality fit on self-esteem, so to establish an effectsize benchmark for contextualizing our results, we also examined the impact of P-C religiosity fit on self-esteem. That is, we ran the same fit analyses using a variable that is distinct from personality, but that is also linked to selfesteem (Gebauer, Sedikides, Schönbrodt, et al, 2015) and that has been shown to vary geographically (Motyl, Iyer, Oishi, Trawalter, & Nosek, 2014).…”

Fear, Populism, and the Geopolitical Landscape

“…To the extent that these factors diminished the validity of the personality estimates, the effects reported here are likely to be diminished too, so any effects should be interpreted as conservative estimates. However, indirect evidence for the validity of the personality estimates is provided by previous research undertaken at regional levels, which has shown convergence between analyses based on self-reports and informant reports (e.g., Gebauer et al, 2014) and has demonstrated reasonably strong levels of state-level stability Elleman, Condon, Russin, & Revelle, 2017;Rentfrow et al, 2013).…”

Psychological Comparison Processes and Self–Concept in Relation to Five Distinct Frame–Of–Reference Effects: Pan–Human Cross–Cultural Generalizability over 68 Countries

“…We also note, however, that more research is needed to further explore the source of country‐to‐country variation among these effects. One possibility, for example, is to align countries in relation to spatial proximity, in which countries more geographically close to each other are more similar (e.g., Gebauer et al, ), or proximity in relation to other dimensions more relevant to the focus of research such as school policies in relation to tracking. Indeed, as shown by previous research, the most critical variable is the nature of tracking in the school system—operationalized here as variation in school‐average achievement (e.g., Marsh & Seaton, ).…”