The null effects of religiosity on prosocial behavior reflect biased sampling of university students

Evidence

One answer jumps out of Henrich’s comparative study: what makes a difference is adherence to prosocial religions with Big Gods—not any type of religious involvement. But why is that degree of religious involvement in cultures influenced by prosocial religions does not matter? Another possible answer is that the psychological studies that have failed to find any effects of religious involvement did not recruit people who are that religious. Many (but not all) of these studies sample from university student populations. Perhaps these samples have not internalized religious sensibilities deeply enough. Perhaps the most devout, who are especially likely to respond prosocially without any religious prompting, are not likely to be picked to be in psychology studies. This is a methodological issue that we cannot dismiss easily, especially in light of findings from more deeply religious societies that demonstrate a link between religious involvement and prosocial behavior. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 187

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the WEIRD sampling critique in the next paragraph; also bears on the reader’s Big God/partner-choice integration—sampling artifacts could skew any empirical test of religious prosociality.