Religious Children Less Altruistic, More Selfish & Meaner than Non-Religious?

[Perknose]

The findings of a peer-reviewed study published in Current Biology indicate this.

Some (relatively) brief excerpts from the findings:

Regardless of religious identification, frequency of religious practice, household spirituality, and overall religiousness were inversely predictive of children’s altruism (r = &#8722;.161, p < 0.001; r = &#8722;.179, p < 0.001; r = &#8722;.173, p < 0.001, respectively; Figure 2). Results from a linear regression with number of stickers shared as the dependent variable and age (1-year bins), country of origin, socioeconomic status (1–6 scale) and overall religiousness of the household (aggregate score) suggest that age (&#946;standardized = 0.410, p < 0.001), SES (&#946;standardized = 0.13, p < 0.001), and religiousness (&#946;standardized = &#8722;.150, p < 0.001) are all significant predictors of sharing (model r2adjusted = 0.194). Importantly, the relations between altruism and the three aspects of religiousness were strongest in older children (n = 533, ages 8–12 years; r = &#8722;.187 p < 0.001; r = &#8722;.211, p < 0.001; r = &#8722;.202, p < 0.001, respectively).

Here, we show that religiosity, as indexed by three different measures, is not associated with increased altruism in young children. Our findings robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households. Moreover, the negative relation between religiousness and spirituality and altruism changes across age, with those children with longer experience of religion in the household exhibiting the greatest negative relations. Of additional note is that the sharing of resources was with an anonymous child beneficiary from the same school and similar ethnic group. Therefore, this result cannot be simply explained by in-group versus out-group biases that are known to change children’s cooperative behaviors from an early age [15], nor by the known fact that religious people tend to be more altruistic toward individuals from their in-group [8, 16].

A second major finding from these data is that religiosity affects children’s punitive tendencies when evaluating interpersonal harm. Interestingly, this result is in sharp contrast with reports that patterns of moral judgments made by subjects with a religious background do not differ from those who are atheists [17]. Of note, most of these studies relied on moral dilemmas that have poor ecological validity, as the situations they depict are unlikely to happen, and thus tell us little about moral decision making in everyday life [18]. Here, we employed ecologically valid depictions of everyday mundane interpersonal harm that occur in schools, from a task previously used in neurodevelopmental investigations of moral sensitivity [19, 20, 21]. Research indicates that religiousness is directly related to increased intolerance for and punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses, including the probability of supporting harsh penalties [22]. For instance, within Christianity, fundamentalists tend to be more punitive and advocate for harsher corrections than non-fundamentalists [23]. Moreover, Christians are also argued to view the moral wrongness of an action as a dichotomy and are less likely to discriminate between gradients of wrongness, yielding equal ratings for a variety of transgressions [24]. While this association is documented in adults of the major world religions, here the relation between greater religiousness and preference for more severe punishment is observed in development, when morality is in a sensitive and fragile period, subject to social learning and cultural practices [25]

.

While there is a gap between children’s knowledge of fairness and their actual behavior between 3 and 8 years of age [27], it cannot explain the negative impact of religiosity on altruism. The phenomenon of moral licensing is well established in a variety of domains including prosocial behavior. It can disinhibit selfish behavior and reduce prosocial behavior [28] and may account in explaining how children raised in religious households, who are perceived to be more empathetic and sensitive to justice, are in fact less altruistic to their own class mates.

"Moral licensing" might be the key here. Crudely put, I can cut off your hand for stealing or deny you two guys the right to marry because God says I can. It puts me in mind of that old Caucasian spiritual, Oh Blinding Light.

Oh blinding light
Oh light that blinds
I cannot see
Look out for me.

 

[Jaskalas]

The findings of a peer-reviewed study published in Current Biology indicate this.

I can't help but think if you replaced religious with <insert race here> that this would be a famously banned member's thread. Comparing stats of one group of people to another.

But if we actually willing to allow this, I'd just like to point out the obvious... look at their parents. The... "stock" they come from explains a lot. People in a bad place are going to need fairy tales... and their situation also lends itself to adapting certain survival traits.

Though you could also find argument in the ideological field too.
Conservatives HIGHLY identify with the notion of "every man... an island".
And "!@#$ you, got mine"...

Those notions may have worked back in the wild west, in a dog eat dog world where there was "room" for everyone. But we're highly developed and land locked society now. There is no free land to roam, no island to claim. We run into each other, and unless it's to end in typical primate violence we need to agree to be governed by a set of laws... from our government.

So right away you'll run into a mindset that's a few centuries old and doesn't really match the realities we face today. It'll also, highly likely, be viewed as less altruistic, more selfish, and meaner than... for example, Bill Clinton's keynote line: You see, we believe that “we’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

 

[shira]

But, but, but . . . without God there can be no morality, so sense of justice, no compassion.

 

[thraashman]

But, but, but . . . without God there can be no morality, so sense of justice, no compassion.

And with it there can often be no thought, no common sense, no consideration, no empathy...

I wish mine were joking like yours though.

 

[PokerGuy]

I haven't had the time to read the whole thing yet, but the premise is interesting so I'll take a closer look tonight. If I understand it correctly their measure of "altruism" was to see how many of the ten stickers each participant was given they gave to someone else. That doesn't seem like much of a measure of real altruism to me.

You also chose to highlight a finding of less altruism, but omit the finding that children in more religious households showed more sensitivity to injustice and more empathy.

IMO the finding of increased punitive tendencies is neither good nor bad. I don't find it particularly surprising that people raised to believe in adherence to a set of rules (or risk whatever horrible eternal punishment their religion prescribes for failure to do so) are going to be more inclined to punish those who transgress in other ways (legal, moral).

Edit: the kids were asked to judge the "meanness" of an action, I didn't see anything in the study measuring how "mean" the subjects were, or conclusions about more religious kids being more "mean". I might have missed something. There is also no mention of selfishness in the study, unlike the title of the thread.

 

[PokerGuy]

But, but, but . . . without God there can be no morality, so sense of justice, no compassion.

You realize this study had no conclusions about any of those things right?

According to the study, more religious upbringing corresponded with increased empathy.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've always wondered, personally, about studies like this:

What do they really prove? That its better/worse to be raised in a religious/non-religious household?

I've just always held the opinion that people conduct "studies" to support whatever viewpoint they want.

 

[Perknose]

I haven't had the time to read the whole thing yet, but the premise is interesting so I'll take a closer look tonight. If I understand it correctly their measure of "altruism" was to see how many of the ten stickers each participant was given they gave to someone else. That doesn't seem like much of a measure of real altruism to me.

Your cursory description of their methodology is a ridiculous simplification. You do understand that rigorous scientific research involves isolating one specific variable that it can be quantified.

Anywho, I'll allow the authors themselves to better explain exactly what they did, and how.

To examine the influence of religion on the expression of
altruism, we used a resource allocation task, the dictator
game, in a large, diverse, and cross-cultural sample of children
(n = 1,170, ages 5–12) from Chicago (USA), Toronto (Canada),
Amman (Jordan), Izmir and Istanbul (Turkey), Cape Town (South
Africa), and Guangzhou (China). Consistent with literature in the
development of generosity, age in years was predictive of the total
resources shared (r = 0.408, p < 0.001) [4, 6], but the religious
rearing environment fundamentally shaped how their altruism
was expressed.

In our sample, 23.9% of households identified as Christian (n =
280), 43% as Muslim (n = 510), 27.6% as not religious (n = 323),
2.5% as Jewish (n = 29), 1.6% as Buddhist (n = 18), 0.4% as
Hindu (n = 5), 0.2% as agnostic (n = 3), and 0.5% as other (n =
6). Results from an independent samples t test, comparing
altruism in children from religiously identifying (Msharing = 3.25,
SD = 2.46) and non-religiously identifying (Msharing = 4.11, SD =
2.48) households indicated significantly less sharing in the
former than the latter (p < 0.001).

To further investigate these effects within specific religions, three large groupings were established: Christian, Muslim, and not religious; children from other religious households did not reach a large enough sample
size to be included in additional analyses. Results from a linear
regression with number of stickers shared as the dependent
variable and age (1-year bins), country of origin, socioeconomic
status (SES), and religious identification of the household
(dummy coded) suggest that age (bstandardized = 0.39, p <
0.001), SES (bstandardized = 0.16, p < 0.001), country (bstandardized =
0.1, p < 0.01), and religious identification (bstandardized =
.132, p <
0.001) are significant predictors of sharing, (model r2 adjusted =
0.184). Paired comparisons (corrected for family-wise error)
showed that Christian children (Msharing = 3.33, SD = 2.46) did
not differ in their altruism from Muslims (Msharing = 3.20, SD =
2.24); however, both were significantly less altruistic than non-religious
children (Msharing= 4.09, SD = 2.52, both p < 0.001; Figure 1).

Regardless of religious identification, frequency of religious
practice, household spirituality, and overall religiousness
were inversely predictive of children’s altruism (r =
.161, p <
0.001; r =
.179, p < 0.001; r =
.173, p < 0.001, respectively;
Figure 2). Results from a linear regression with number of
stickers shared as the dependent variable and age (1-year
bins), country of origin, socioeconomic status (1–6 scale) and
overall religiousness of the household (aggregate score) suggest
that age (bstandardized = 0.410, p < 0.001), SES (bstandardized = 0.13,
p < 0.001), and religiousness (bstandardized =
.150, p < 0.001) are
all significant predictors of sharing (model r2 adjusted = 0.194).
Importantly, the relations between altruism and the three
aspects of religiousness were strongest in older children (n =
533, ages 8–12 years; r =
.187 p < 0.001; r =
.211, p <
0.001; r =
.202, p < 0.001, respectively).

Results from a univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA),
with judgments of meanness of harmful actions as the dependent
variable, religious identification as the independent variable,
and age, SES, and country of origin (to account for known
influences) as the covariates, revealed a significant main effect of religious identification on meanness rating (F(2, 767) = 6.521, p =
0.002, h2 = 0.017; Figure 3). Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected
paired comparisons showed that children in Muslim households
judged interpersonal harm as more mean than children from
Christian (p < 0.005) and non-religious (p < 0.001) households,
and children from Christian households judged interpersonal
harm as more mean than children from non-religious households
(p < 0.01). Moreover, children from religious households also
differ in their ratings of deserved punishment for interpersonal
harm (F(2, 847) = 5.80, p < 0.01, h2 = 0.014); this was qualified
by significantly harsher ratings of punishment by children from
Muslim households than children from non-religious households
(p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between children
from Christian households and non-religious households.

Religiousness positively predicted parent-reported child
sensitivity to injustice and child empathy, even after accounting
for age, SES, and country of origin (bstandardized = 0.194, p <
0.001; bstandardized = 0.89, p < 0.01, respectively). Results from
a univariate analysis of variance, with parent-reported justice
sensitivity as the dependent variable and religious identification
as the independent variable and age, SES, and country of origin
as the covariates, revealed a significant main effect of religious
identification on children’s justice sensitivity (F(2,795) = 15.44,
p < 0.001, h2 = 0.04; Figure 4). Children from Christian households
were significantly higher in parent-rated justice sensitivity
than children from Muslim households (p < 0.001) and non-religious
households (p < 0.001).

You also chose to highlight a finding of less altruism, but omit the finding that children in more religious households showed more sensitivity to injustice and more empathy.

No, I didn't. It's right in my OP. Btw, the "more empathy and sensitivity to injustice" you highlight was entirely expressed by HARSHER, more punitive measures being endorsed, even when the "transgression" was relatively minor.

Here, I'll repost what you claimed I omitted:

A second major finding from these data is that religiosity affects children’s punitive tendencies when evaluating interpersonal harm. Interestingly, this result is in sharp contrast with reports that patterns of moral judgments made by subjects with a religious background do not differ from those who are atheists [17]. Of note, most of these studies relied on moral dilemmas that have poor ecological validity, as the situations they depict are unlikely to happen, and thus tell us little about moral decision making in everyday life [18]. Here, we employed ecologically valid depictions of everyday mundane interpersonal harm that occur in schools, from a task previously used in neurodevelopmental investigations of moral sensitivity [19, 20, 21]. Research indicates that religiousness is directly related to increased intolerance for and punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses, including the probability of supporting harsh penalties [22]. For instance, within Christianity, fundamentalists tend to be more punitive and advocate for harsher corrections than non-fundamentalists [23]. Moreover, Christians are also argued to view the moral wrongness of an action as a dichotomy and are less likely to discriminate between gradients of wrongness, yielding equal ratings for a variety of transgressions [24]. While this association is documented in adults of the major world religions, here the relation between greater religiousness and preference for more severe punishment is observed in development, when morality is in a sensitive and fragile period, subject to social learning and cultural practices [25]

While there is a gap between children’s knowledge of fairness and their actual behavior between 3 and 8 years of age [27], it cannot explain the negative impact of religiosity on altruism. The phenomenon of moral licensing is well established in a variety of domains including prosocial behavior. It can disinhibit selfish behavior and reduce prosocial behavior [28] and may account in explaining how children raised in religious households, who are perceived to be more empathetic and sensitive to justice, are in fact less altruistic to their own class mates.

 

[Perknose]

According to the study, more religious upbringing corresponded with increased empathy.

See my reply to you above. This "empathy" you speak of was expressed entirely in harsher retribution for "perceived interpersonal transgressions" and, in the more fundamental Christian households, without regard for the severity of the supposed transgression.

 

[shira]

You realize this study had no conclusions about any of those things right?

According to the study, more religious upbringing corresponded with increased empathy.

Sub-quoting from the OP:

Our findings robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households. Moreover, the negative relation between religiousness and spirituality and altruism changes across age, with those children with longer experience of religion in the household exhibiting the greatest negative relations.

So religious people's inner dialog can be summarized as "I feel your pain; but I got mine. Yes!"

 

[Perknose]

Edit: the kids were asked to judge the "meanness" of an action, I didn't see anything in the study measuring how "mean" the subjects were, or conclusions about more religious kids being more "mean". I might have missed something. There is also no mention of selfishness in the study, unlike the title of the thread.

Again, it was right in one of my selected quotes from the authors in my OP.

And again, I'll re-quote it for you:

While there is a gap between children’s knowledge of fairness and their actual behavior between 3 and 8 years of age [27], it cannot explain the negative impact of religiosity on altruism. The phenomenon of moral licensing is well established in a variety of domains including prosocial behavior. It can disinhibit selfish behavior and reduce prosocial behavior [28] and may account in explaining how children raised in religious households, who are perceived to be more empathetic and sensitive to justice, are in fact less altruistic to their own class mates.

 

[PokerGuy]

Your cursory description of their methodology is a ridiculous simplification. You do understand that rigorous scientific research involves isolating one specific variable that it can be quantified.

Anywho, I'll allow the authors themselves to better explain exactly what they did, and how.

That's a whole lot of explanation, but the mechanism they used to measure "altruism" was how many of the 10 stickers each kid was given they gave to someone else. Is that not correct?

No, I didn't. It's right in my OP.

Is it in the title like the other conclusions you chose to highlight?

Btw, the "more empathy and sensitivity to injustice" you highlight was entirely expressed by HARSHER, more punitive measures being endorsed, even when the "transgression" was relatively minor.

You're assuming that's a bad thing. It can be good or bad.

So religious people's inner dialog can be summarized as "I feel your pain; but I got mine. Yes!"

No, you're an idiot, don't try to project your stupidity onto others.

This is a very good example of something that could be very interesting and have scientific merit, but then gets completely screwed up and made worthless because some people feel the need to twist the science to "confirm" their bias or push some dumb position.

 

[PokerGuy]

Again, it was right in one of my selected quotes from the authors in my OP.

And again, I'll re-quote it for you:

And AGAIN, I'll point out that the section you quoted and highlighted doesn't say what you're interpreting it to say. The study does not conclude that kids from a more religious upbringing are more selfish (as you state in the title).

Your apparent need to "prove" that religious people are terrible drives you to leap to unsupported conclusions and interpretations.

 

[Perknose]

And AGAIN, I'll point out that the section you quoted and highlighted doesn't say what you're interpreting it to say. The study does not conclude that kids from a more religious upbringing are more selfish (as you state in the title).

Re-read my title. Pay special attention to the end punctuation (hint, it's a question mark.) Then please re-read the very first sentence of my OP -- "The findings of a peer-reviewed study published in Current Biology indicate this." -- and please note that 'indicates' /= 'concludes'.

And now, for the third time, I'll post the quote from the study's authors, with special attention to the relevant wording, just for you!

While there is a gap between children’s knowledge of fairness and their actual behavior between 3 and 8 years of age [27], it cannot explain the negative impact of religiosity on altruism. The phenomenon of moral licensing is well established in a variety of domains including prosocial behavior. It can disinhibit selfish behavior and reduce prosocial behavior [28] and may account in explaining how children raised in religious households, who are perceived to be more empathetic and sensitive to justice, are in fact less altruistic to their own class mates.

Your apparent need to "prove" that religious people are terrible drives you to leap to unsupported conclusions and interpretations.

Do0d, in the course of our extended conversations in this thread, one of us has repeatedly leapt to unsupported, even demonstrably and provably wrong, conclusions and interpretations. It ain't me, babe. No, no, no it ain't me . . .

 

[PokerGuy]

Re-read my title. Pay special attention to the end punctuation (hint, it's a question mark.) Then please re-read the very first sentence of my OP -- "The findings of a peer-reviewed study published in Current Biology indicate this." -- and please note that 'indicates' /= 'concludes'.

So did you include the other "indications" in the title, or just the ones that confirm your bias?

And now, for the third time, I'll post the quote from the study's authors, with special attention to the relevant wording, just for you!

And you can do it for a forth , fifth or tenth time. It's still just as wrong. It does not support the conclusions you're attributing to it.

Do0d, in the course of our extended conversations in this thread, one of us has repeatedly leapt to unsupported, even demonstrably and provably wrong, conclusions and interpretations. It ain't me, babe. No, no, no it ain't me . . .

I haven't "leapt" to any conclusions. In fact, I've said I plan to look at it closer when I have the time because it might be interesting.

Oh, and did they use measuring how many stickers of the 10 each kid gave to other kids to determine "altruism" or not? It appears to me from a cursory reading that the answer is "yes". That's a pretty sorry proxy for actual altruism IMO.

 

[Moonbeam]

So did you include the other "indications" in the title, or just the ones that confirm your bias?



And you can do it for a forth , fifth or tenth time. It's still just as wrong. It does not support the conclusions you're attributing to it.



I haven't "leapt" to any conclusions. In fact, I've said I plan to look at it closer when I have the time because it might be interesting.

Oh, and did they use measuring how many stickers of the 10 each kid gave to other kids to determine "altruism" or not? It appears to me from a cursory reading that the answer is "yes". That's a pretty sorry proxy for actual altruism IMO.

How have you not leapt to any conclusions when you are already arguing and haven't even finished your closer look?

 

[buckshot24]

But, but, but . . . without God there can be no morality, so sense of justice, no compassion.

Your strawman is noted.

 

[Jaskalas]

Highlights

• Family religious identification decreases children’s altruistic behaviors
• Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to injustices and empathy
• Children from religious households are harsher in their punitive tendencies

In Brief
Decety and colleagues assessed altruism
and moral cognition in six countries.
Parents in religious households reported
that their children expressed more
empathy and sensitivity for justice in
everyday life. However, religiousness was
inversely predictive of children’s altruism
and positively correlated with their
punitive tendencies.

Are these traits not also higher in poor segments of society? Have we distinguished traits unique from one group to the other, or should we even try? If poverty correlates to religion they may be too interwoven to separate.

Here's the real kicker. Would the Bible Belt exist if not for the burning and sundering experienced during the Civil War? The regional economic depression continues to this day.

 

[shira]

Your strawman is noted.

How can accurately stating what YOU believe be a "strawman?"

 

[Moonbeam]

But, but, but . . . without God there can be no morality, so sense of justice, no compassion.

Very true, but you took the wrong lesson from it. Atheists are moral because God exists. Atheists just have no idea why they can be moral. God is right under you nose and you don't see him but you can smell him just fine.

 

[1prophet]

http://www.cell.com/action/showExperimentalProcedures?pii=S0960-9822(15)01167-7

So based on this scientific study not religious is best and Islam is worst, with the exception of "Children's sensitivity to injustice" than Christianity is best while not religious is the worst.

Are those who are critical of religion sure they want to use this politically incorrect study in their critic of religion?

 

[buckshot24]

How can accurately stating what YOU believe be a "strawman?"

Because I don't believe that?

 

[buckshot24]

Very true, but you took the wrong lesson from it. Atheists are moral because God exists. Atheists just have no idea why they can be moral. God is right under you nose and you don't see him but you can smell him just fine.

:thumbsup:

 

[adamantine.me]

Wellthatescalatedquickly.gif

I'm not even convinced there is a truly altruistic act, anyway.

 

[Greenman]

They must have talked to different religious kids than the ones I know.