Belief in God: Why People Believe, and Why They Don’t

Belief in God: Why People Believe, and Why They Don’t. Brett Mercier, Stephanie R. Kramer, Azim F. Shariff. Current Directions in Psychological Science, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418754491

Abstract: Belief in a god or gods is a central feature in the lives of billions of people and a topic of perennial interest within psychology. However, research over the past half decade has achieved a new level of understanding regarding both the ultimate and proximate causes of belief in God. Ultimate causes—the evolutionary influences on a trait—shed light on the adaptive value of belief in God and the reasons why a tendency toward this belief exists in humans. Proximate causes—the immediate influences on the expression of a trait—explain variation and changes in belief. We review this research and discuss remaining barriers to a fuller understanding of belief in God.

Keywords: belief, God, evolution, religion

Bullshit-receptivity (perceived meaningfulness of bullshit sentences) & profoundness-receptivity (perceived meaningfulness of genuinely profound sentences) are negatively/positively linked to prosocial behavior

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior. Arvid Erlandsson et al. PLOS, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201474

Abstract: Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. “Your movement transforms universal observations”) from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. “The person who never made a mistake never tried something new”). Although bullshit-sensitivity has been linked to other individual difference measures, it has not yet been shown to predict any actual behavior. We therefore conducted a survey study with over a thousand participants from a general sample of the Swedish population and assessed participants’ bullshit-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven bullshit sentences) and profoundness-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven genuinely profound sentences), and used these variables to predict two types of prosocial behavior (self-reported donations and a decision to volunteer for charity). Despite bullshit-receptivity and profoundness-receptivity being positively correlated with each other, logistic regression analyses showed that profoundness-receptivity had a positive association whereas bullshit-receptivity had a negative association with both types of prosocial behavior. These relations held up for the most part when controlling for potentially intermediating factors such as cognitive ability, time spent completing the survey, sex, age, level of education, and religiosity. The results suggest that people who are better at distinguishing the pseudo-profound from the actually profound are more prosocial.

How an individual interprets a relationship social comparison have implications for the self and one’s relationship; we studied the effects on relationship satisfaction & commitment, satisfaction with life, & happiness for both dating & married individuals

Rolf Degen summarizing: People compare their romantic relationships to those of others in ways that make their own look better. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1024514641668567040

Relationship social comparisons in dating and marital relationships: Adding relationship social comparison interpretations. Marian M. Morry & Tamara A. Sucharyna. The Journal of Social Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1498826

ABSTRACT: How an individual interprets a relationship social comparison may have important implications for the self and one’s relationship. We asked whether these interpretations significantly mediated the relation between the manipulated social comparison direction and relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, satisfaction with life, and happiness for both dating (Studies 1 and 2) and married (Study 2) individuals. Participants were randomly assigned to make an upward or downward comparison to a friend’s romantic relationship and completed measures of their interpretations, relationship quality, satisfaction with life, and happiness. For both dating and married individuals, there were indirect effects of manipulated social comparison direction through the interpretations for all dependent variables. Although there were some differences in mediation for married and dating individuals, the effect sizes were not significantly different.

KEYWORDS: Cognitions, relationship quality, relationship type, social comparisons