Witnessing an intense ritual boosts prosociality as much as participating in it

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 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Thus, unlike the Good Samaritan study and ones like it, religious involvement predicted greater contributions to the public good, and greater likelihood of cooperation. One key difference is that reminders of God are likely to be more chronically present in religious kibbutz, madrassahs, and Candomble communities, where religious prayer and attendance are a daily part of life. Another is that prosociality in these communities clearly benefited in-group members (despite being anonymous), whereas in the Good Samaritan study, the victim was a total stranger. It is also possible that regular, communal prayer involves public ritual participation, which, independent of devotion to a morally concerned deity, might also encourage more prosociality. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 183 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

When a group is together, each person (after a focus is established, or not) finishes a sentence beginning with “WE COULD…” in as many ways as possible. Time could be limited, or open-ended. The sentences could be recorded or not. The group could vote on subsequent action according to the sentences, or just enjoy imagining what they could be doing. — Pauline Oliveros, Deep Listening, 326 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Religious situations boost prosociality more than personal devotion does — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 154; Chronic, communal, in-group religious practice drives the prosociality effect — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 183; A group imagining actions shifts from spectator to potential doer — Pauline Oliveros, Deep Listening, 326 (+3 more)

Related

• Audible religious calls trigger generosity in non-Western settings (similarity 0.91)
• Religious situations boost prosociality more than personal devotion does (similarity 0.90)
• Religiosity predicts helping only when one can be seen doing it (similarity 0.88)
• Daily communal prayer predicts greater cooperation in public goods games (similarity 0.87)
• Religious identity alone does not make people more charitable (similarity 0.86)
• Chronic, communal, in-group religious practice drives the prosociality effect (similarity 0.86)
• Prosocial religious groups outcompeted rivals through internal cooperation. (similarity 0.85)
• Religious participation, not belief, drives support for intergroup conflict (similarity 0.84)
• Religious behavior depends on situational context, observable action, and intergroup competition (similarity 0.82)
• Situation beats stated religiosity in predicting selfishness (similarity 0.82)
• Costly religious requirements directly explain group longevity in communes (similarity 0.81)
• Unconscious thoughts of God increase generosity in economic games (similarity 0.81)
• Religion drives intergroup conflict through three mutable pathways, not belief alone (similarity 0.80)
• Religion is historically the primary motivator of prosociality among strangers. (similarity 0.80)
• Self-reported religiosity predicts prosociality only outside secular Western societies (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Religious situations boost prosociality more than personal devotion does #qualifies (0.85) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 154
• Chronic, communal, in-group religious practice drives the prosociality effect #corroborates (0.78) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 183
• A group imagining actions shifts from spectator to potential doer #expands (0.72) — Pauline Oliveros, Deep Listening, 326