Cited by 77Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Supernatural punishment, in-group biases, and material insecurity: experiments and ethnography from Yasawa, Fiji

McNamara, Rita Anne, Norenzayan, Ara, Henrich, Joseph·2016·Religion, Brain & Behavior

Abstract

Threat of supernatural punishment can promote prosociality in large-scale societies; however, its impact in smaller societies with less powerful deities is less understood. Also, while perceived material insecurity has been associated with increasing religious belief, the relationships between insecurity, supernatural punishment beliefs, and prosocial behavior are unclear. In this study, we explore how material insecurity moderates the supernatural punishment beliefs that promote different expectations about distant, anonymous strangers among a sample of villagers living in Yasawa, Fiji. We examined this relationship by employing an economic game designed to measure local recipient favoritism vs. egalitarian, rule-following behavior. Using indices of three different “punishing” agents – the Christian God (“Bible God”), the deified ancestors (Kalou-vu), and the police – we find that increased belief in Bible God punishment predicts less local recipient favoritism at low and moderate but not high material insecurity. Punishing Kalou-vu also predicts less favoritism at low and moderate insecurity, but more favoritism at high insecurity. Police punishment poorly predicts favoritism, suggesting that secular authority has less impact on isolated communities. We discuss implications for understanding how different kinds of supernatural and secular agent beliefs impact prosocial behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/2153599x.2014.921235

Cites

96 of 96 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?

  • Perhaps the biggest adaptive benefit that arises from prosocial religious belief systems is their capacity to expand the definition of who belongs within an in-group.

    “Along these lines, perhaps the biggest adaptive benefit that arises from prosocial religious belief systems is their capacity to expand the definition of who belongs within an in-group (McNamara et al. 2016).”
  • Factors such as religion, inequality, and resource scarcity may predict prejudice and discrimination across cultures.

    “Factors such as religion, inequality, and resource scarcity may predict prejudice and discrimination across cultures [23,62–64].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McNamara, R. A., Norenzayan, A., & Henrich, J.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
McNamara, Rita Anne
Venue
Religion, Brain & Behavior
Published
2014-06-18
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
34-55
ISSN
  • 2153-5981 (ISSN-L)
  • 2153-599X
OpenAlex
W2053932464
Cited by
77
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
39.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Religion Brain & Behavior (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Chicago New Science of Virtues Project. Funded by the Templeton Foundation: University of British Columbia Department of Psychology
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
supernatural punishment, material insecurity, prosocial behavior, in-group favoritism, secular authority, small-scale societies, religious beliefs

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