(© Pixel-Shot - stock.adobe.com)
MERCED, Calif. — From Mother Teresa to your neighbor who always lends a helping hand, our mental image of do-gooders often comes with a spiritual glow. Now, science confirms this isn’t just coincidence, but a deep-seated psychological bias that spans cultures.
A study from the University of California, Merced reveals that we’re far more likely to assume that extraordinarily kind individuals are believers rather than atheists. This unconscious bias, it turns out, may be even stronger than our tendency to associate nonbelief with immoral behavior.
The study, spearheaded by cognitive science graduate student Alex Dayer, flips the script on previous research that focused on our darker assumptions about atheists. Instead of asking participants to judge the beliefs of a hypothetical serial killer, Dayer and his team introduced the concept of a “serial helper” – someone prone to acts of extraordinary benevolence.
The results, published in Scientific Reports, were striking. In the United States, participants were a staggering 20 times more likely to assume the helpful individual believed in God rather than being an atheist. Even in the more secular society of New Zealand, where nearly half the population reports no religious affiliation, respondents were 12 times more likely to associate the good Samaritan with religious faith.
“Though we also found that people intuitively link atheism with immoral behavior, people appear to associate believing in God with being generous, helpful and caring to a much greater extent,” says study co-author Colin Holbrook, a professor in UC Merced’s Department of Cognitive and Information Sciences, in a statement.
This bias transcends personal beliefs. Even those who identified as non-religious showed a tendency to link extraordinary kindness with faith, though the effect was stronger among religious participants. This suggests a deeply ingrained cultural association between religiosity and prosocial behavior – actions that benefit others.
But why does this association exist, and what does it mean for our society? The researchers point to evolutionary theories about the development of major world religions. The idea of a divine being who rewards good deeds and punishes transgressions is common across faiths. This belief system may have fostered trust and cooperation among strangers who shared little beyond their spiritual convictions.
“Strangers with little in common beyond their shared spiritual beliefs in moralizing gods might be more inclined to trust and less inclined to exploit one another,” Holbrook explains.
It’s crucial to note that these findings reflect our perceptions, not necessarily reality. The jury is still out on whether religious individuals are actually more prone to helping others. “The evidence that believers are more prosocial is currently mixed, and it’s a question that calls for more research,” Holbrook cautions.
Nevertheless, understanding these implicit biases is vital in our increasingly diverse world. They can influence everything from personal relationships to hiring decisions and public policy. By recognizing our tendency to equate faith with virtue, we can work towards more nuanced and fair assessments of individuals based on their actions rather than their beliefs – or lack thereof.
This study serves as a powerful reminder that our judgments of others are often colored by unconscious biases. As we strive for a more equitable society, acknowledging these tendencies is the first step toward overcoming them. The next time we witness an act of kindness, let’s challenge ourselves to appreciate the deed for what it is, rather than what we assume about the doer’s beliefs.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers employed a clever technique known as the “conjunction fallacy” to measure implicit biases. Participants read vignettes about either a highly moral “serial helper” or a highly immoral “serial killer.” They were then asked to choose whether it was more probable that the character was simply a teacher, or a teacher who either believed or didn’t believe in God. Logically, being just a teacher is always more likely than being a teacher with a specific belief. However, if participants choose the less probable option, it suggests a strong mental association between the character’s behavior and religious belief (or lack thereof).
Results
In both the US and New Zealand, participants were significantly more likely to commit the conjunction fallacy when the “serial helper” was described as religious. The effect was particularly strong, with US respondents being nearly 20 times more likely to guess that the helpful person believed in God than that they were an atheist. In New Zealand, this bias was still present but slightly less pronounced, with respondents being 12 times more likely to associate helpfulness with religious belief. While the study also replicated previous findings linking atheism with immoral behavior, this effect was notably weaker than the association between religiosity and prosocial behavior.
Limitations
The study focused on two English-speaking countries, which limits its global generalizability. Additionally, the research measures stereotypes and perceptions rather than actual behavior. As Holbrook notes, the evidence on whether religious individuals are truly more prosocial in reality is mixed and requires further investigation.
Discussion and Takeaways
The researchers suggest that these findings support theories about the cultural evolution of religion as a tool for promoting cooperation in large societies. The strong association between religiosity and prosocial behavior might help explain why religious beliefs have been so persistent throughout human history. However, they caution against interpreting these results as evidence that religious people are actually more moral or that atheists are less trustworthy. Instead, the study reveals deeply ingrained psychological biases that can influence our judgments of others, often unconsciously. Understanding these biases is crucial for promoting fairness and reducing prejudice in diverse societies.
Funding and Disclosures
The study was conducted by researchers at the University of California, Merced. No specific funding or competing interests were mentioned in the press release.
