Compassion drives prosocial behavior in nonbelievers but not believers

Evidence

The results showed that among nonbelievers, the greater the feelings of compassion were, the more prosocial their behavior was. Among believers, feelings of compassion were unrelated to prosocial behavior. … In another study, believers and nonbelievers were induced to experience compassion by watching a video about child poverty. … The compassion video made nonbelievers more generous, but it had no effect on believers. Thus, it appears that the absence of supernatural monitoring is compensated for by stronger compassion. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 249

This line of reasoning leads to an interesting possibility: since nonbelievers do not rely on supernatural monitoring, is it the case that they, more than the religious, act prosocially out of compassion? Several studies by Laura Saslow and her colleagues looked exactly at this idea. In one study, participants reported their current feelings of compassion, then played several economic games with strangers where several prosocial tendencies were measured. Would they share a windfall with a stranger? How much would they trust a stranger? How much would they contribute to a common pool that would benefit everyone? (Prior to participating in the study, participants reported their levels of religiosity, and were matched on gender, socioeconomic class, and political orientation, factors that might independently influence their behavior.) The results showed that among nonbelievers, the greater the feelings of compassion were, the more prosocial their behavior was. Among believers, feelings of compassion were unrelated to prosocial behavior. In another study, believers and nonbelievers were induced to experience compassion by watching a video about child poverty. (Comparison groups watched a neutral video about two men talking.) Then, in a seemingly unrelated task, all participants played the anonymous Dictator Game, where they had the opportunity to share any portion of the equivalent of $10 with a total stranger. The compassion video made nonbelievers more generous, but it had no effect on believers. Thus, it appears that the absence of supernatural monitoring is compensated for by stronger compassion. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 249

Categorization

• XREF: Cuts against the strong Big God substitution claim in the reader’s frame: if believers’ compassion is unrelated to prosociality, supernatural monitoring may crowd out internal moral emotion — relevant to how Rodrigues’ omniscient-gaze piety generates behavior.
• SEED: Article angle: does belief in an omniscient watcher crowd out intrinsic compassion, making religious prosociality brittle once the watcher is absent (or apostasy forced)?
• DEEPTHINKING: The asymmetry — compassion predicting prosociality only for nonbelievers — complicates the substitution thesis: rather than merely substituting external monitoring with internal emotion, the two may trade off in a motivated way.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 249