Cited by 58Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorLanguage and cultural evolution

Parochial prosocial religions: Historical and contemporary evidence for a cultural evolutionary process

Norenzayan, Ara, Shariff, Azim F., Gervais, Will M., Willard, Aiyana K., McNamara, Rita A., Slingerland, Edward, Henrich, Joseph·2016·Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Abstract

In our response to the 27 commentaries, we refine the theoretical claims, clarify several misconceptions of our framework, and explore substantial disagreements. In doing so, we (1) show that our framework accommodates multiple historical scenarios; (2) debate the historical evidence, particularly about “pre-Axial” religions; (3) offer important details about cultural evolutionary theory; (4) clarify the term prosociality; and (4) discuss proximal mechanisms. We review many interesting extensions, amplifications, and qualifications of our approach made by the commentators.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x15000655

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A belief or behaviour within religious and/or spiritual cultural complexes need only promote individuals' tendencies to take on a cost for the benefit of their focal group in order to produce cooperation and its associated prosocial effects (parochial altruism).

    “Similarly, a belief or behaviour within religious and/or spiritual cultural complexes need only promote individuals' tendencies to take on a cost for the benefit of their focal group in order for it to produce cooperation and its associated prosocial effects (a phenomenon known as parochial altruism: García and van den Bergh 2011; Choi and Bowles 2007; Norenzayan et al. 2016b).”

    From Cultural Evolution of Religion, Spirituality and Ritual: Impacts On Human Cooperation (2024) · cites this paper as Norenzayan et al. 2016b

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 136 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Norenzayan, A., Shariff, A. F., Gervais, W. M., Willard, A. K., McNamara, R. A., Slingerland, E., & Henrich, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
2016
Volume
39
Pages
e29-e29
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
OpenAlex
W2298775266
Cited by
58
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
15.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
prosocial behavior, religion, cultural evolution, parochialism, evolution of religion
MeSH terms
Cultural Evolution, Religion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review