Audible religious calls trigger generosity in non-Western settings

Evidence

Erik Duhaime approached shopkeepers in Marrakech, Morocco, and asked them to choose one of the following three options: (1) I give you 20 dirhams (about $2.50); (2) I give charity 60 dirhams; or (3) I give you 10 dirhams and charity 30 dirhams. (This is yet another version of the Dictator Game, discussed earlier.) Critically, sometimes he approached them during the Muslim call to prayer, sometimes not. When the call to prayer was being sounded out from minarets throughout the city, 100 percent of the shopkeepers chose option 2, the most charitable option, compared to only around 60 percent of shopkeepers when he asked at times when the call to prayer was not audible. … In another field experiment, Dimitris Xygalatas went further and compared the relative effects of religious situations and religious dispositions on selfish behavior. He randomly assigned Hindu participants in Mauritius to play an economic game either in a religious setting (a temple) or in a comparable secular setting (a restaurant). Participants were given the opportunity to withdraw from a shared pool of money that otherwise would benefit the entire group. He found that participants who played the game in the temple withdrew 170 rupees, compared to 231 rupees on average when playing in the restaurant. Prior to the field experiment, participants had rated their intensity of religiosity. How religiously involved participants said they were had little bearing on how much money they withdrew from the shared pool—only the situation where they played mattered. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 154 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The entire argument in this book can be summarized in eight interrelated principles. … 2. Religion is more in the situation than in the person. … 5. Religious actions speak louder than words. … 8. Religious groups cooperate in order to compete. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 19 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

In virtually all of these priming studies, reported religious involvement was unrelated to prosocial tendenies, while religious priming made a substantial difference. In addition, religious involvement was unrelated to helping rates in the Good Samaritan study and similar ones conducted in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Yet several other studies conducted outside North America and Europe, including a fifteen-society comparative investigation, have indeed found a clear link between religious involvement and prosociality. How can we explain this apparent puzzle? — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 186 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Religious behavior depends on situational context, observable action, and intergroup competition — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 19; Religious situations boost prosociality more than personal devotion does — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 154; Self-reported religiosity predicts prosociality only outside secular Western societies — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 186 (+4 more)

Related

• Religiosity predicts helping only when one can be seen doing it (similarity 0.93)
• Witnessing an intense ritual boosts prosociality as much as participating in it (similarity 0.91)
• Religious situations boost prosociality more than personal devotion does (similarity 0.90)
• Religious identity alone does not make people more charitable (similarity 0.90)
• Situation beats stated religiosity in predicting selfishness (similarity 0.88)
• Daily communal prayer predicts greater cooperation in public goods games (similarity 0.88)
• Religious behavior depends on situational context, observable action, and intergroup competition (similarity 0.84)
• Unconscious thoughts of God increase generosity in economic games (similarity 0.83)
• Personal religiosity does not predict generosity in experiments. (similarity 0.83)
• Self-reported religiosity predicts prosociality only outside secular Western societies (similarity 0.83)
• Prosocial religious groups outcompeted rivals through internal cooperation. (similarity 0.83)
• Religious participation, not belief, drives support for intergroup conflict (similarity 0.82)
• Priming God-thoughts makes believers more generous only toward fellow believers. (similarity 0.81)
• Religious priming produces generosity biased toward ingroup members (similarity 0.81)
• Chronic, communal, in-group religious practice drives the prosociality effect (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Religious situations boost prosociality more than personal devotion does #corroborates (0.80) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 154
• Religious behavior depends on situational context, observable action, and intergroup competition #qualifies (0.78) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 19
• Self-reported religiosity predicts prosociality only outside secular Western societies #corroborates (0.75) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 186
• Situation beats stated religiosity in predicting selfishness #corroborates (0.75)
• Chronic, communal, in-group religious practice drives the prosociality effect #corroborates (0.72) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 183
• Daily communal prayer predicts greater cooperation in public goods games #expands (0.72)