Outsourcing punishment to God: beliefs in divine control reduce earthly punishment.
Open accessAbstract
The sanctioning of norm-transgressors is a necessary—though often costly—task for maintaining a well-functioning society. Prior to effective and reliable secular institutions for punishment, large-scale societies depended on individuals engaging in ‘altruistic punishment’—bearing the costs of punishment individually, for the benefit of society. Evolutionary approaches to religion suggest that beliefs in powerful, moralizing Gods, who can distribute rewards and punishments, emerged as a way to augment earthly punishment in large societies that could not effectively monitor norm violations. In five studies, we investigate whether such beliefs in God can replace people's motivation to engage in altruistic punishment, and their support for state-sponsored punishment. Results show that, although religiosity generally predicts higher levels of punishment, the specific belief in powerful, intervening Gods reduces altruistic punishment and support for state-sponsored punishment. Moreover, these effects are specifically owing to differences in people's perceptions that humans are responsible for punishing wrongdoers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Beliefs that emphasize submission, sacrifice, or divine testing may lead individuals to remain in harmful relationships, delaying intervention and increasing risk.
“For example, beliefs that emphasize submission, sacrifice, or divine testing may lead individuals to remain in harmful relationships, delaying intervention and increasing risk (Laurin et al., 2012; Martel et al., 2021).”
From From use to abuse: psychological, neurobiological, and spiritual pathways in relational harm and recovery (2026) · cites this paper as Laurin et al., 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 112
- Authors
- Laurin, K., Shariff, A. F., Henrich, J., & Kay, A. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- University of Oregon (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Laurin, Kristin
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2012-05-23
- Volume
- 279
- Issue
- 1741
- Pages
- 3272-3281
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- PMC
- PMC3385733
- OpenAlex
- W2117894654
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 4.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/I005455/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Violence, Religion, and Philosophy
- Keywords
- altruistic punishment, divine punishment, moralizing gods, religiosity, social sanctions, norm violation, evolutionary theory of religion, large-scale cooperation
- MeSH terms
- Altruism, Cooperative Behavior, Cultural Evolution, Culture, Humans, Punishment, 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