John Michael Kelly, Stephanie R Kramer, Azim F Shariff
{"title":"Religiosity predicts prosociality, especially when measured by self-report: A meta-analysis of almost 60 years of research.","authors":"John Michael Kelly, Stephanie R Kramer, Azim F Shariff","doi":"10.1037/bul0000413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This meta-analysis explores the long-standing and heavily debated question of whether religiosity is associated with prosocial and antisocial behavior at the individual level. In an analysis of 701 effects across 237 samples, encompassing 811,663 participants, a significant relationship of <i>r</i> = .13 was found between religiosity and prosociality (and antisociality, which was treated as its inverse). Nevertheless, there was substantial heterogeneity of effect sizes, and several potential moderators were explored. The effect was most heavily moderated by the type of measurement used to assess prosocial or antisocial behavior. Religiosity correlated more strongly with self-reported prosociality (<i>r</i> = .15) than with directly measured prosocial behavior (<i>r</i> = .06). Three possible interpretations of this moderation are discussed, namely, that (a) lab-based methods do not accurately or fully capture actual religious prosociality; (b) the self-report effect is explained by religious self-enhancement and overreports actual prosociality; or (c) both religiosity and self-reported prosociality are explained by self-enhancement. The question of whether religiosity more strongly positively predicts prosociality or negatively predicts antisociality is also explored. This moderation is, at most, weak. We test additional potential moderators, including the aspect of religiosity and type of behavior measured, the ingroup or outgroup nature of the recipient, and study characteristics. Finally, we recommend a shift in how researchers investigate questions of religiosity and prosociality in the future. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":17,"journal":{"name":"ACS Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000413","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This meta-analysis explores the long-standing and heavily debated question of whether religiosity is associated with prosocial and antisocial behavior at the individual level. In an analysis of 701 effects across 237 samples, encompassing 811,663 participants, a significant relationship of r = .13 was found between religiosity and prosociality (and antisociality, which was treated as its inverse). Nevertheless, there was substantial heterogeneity of effect sizes, and several potential moderators were explored. The effect was most heavily moderated by the type of measurement used to assess prosocial or antisocial behavior. Religiosity correlated more strongly with self-reported prosociality (r = .15) than with directly measured prosocial behavior (r = .06). Three possible interpretations of this moderation are discussed, namely, that (a) lab-based methods do not accurately or fully capture actual religious prosociality; (b) the self-report effect is explained by religious self-enhancement and overreports actual prosociality; or (c) both religiosity and self-reported prosociality are explained by self-enhancement. The question of whether religiosity more strongly positively predicts prosociality or negatively predicts antisociality is also explored. This moderation is, at most, weak. We test additional potential moderators, including the aspect of religiosity and type of behavior measured, the ingroup or outgroup nature of the recipient, and study characteristics. Finally, we recommend a shift in how researchers investigate questions of religiosity and prosociality in the future. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
ACS Infectious Diseases will be the first journal to highlight chemistry and its role in this multidisciplinary and collaborative research area. The journal will cover a diverse array of topics including, but not limited to:
* Discovery and development of new antimicrobial agents — identified through target- or phenotypic-based approaches as well as compounds that induce synergy with antimicrobials.
* Characterization and validation of drug target or pathways — use of single target and genome-wide knockdown and knockouts, biochemical studies, structural biology, new technologies to facilitate characterization and prioritization of potential drug targets.
* Mechanism of drug resistance — fundamental research that advances our understanding of resistance; strategies to prevent resistance.
* Mechanisms of action — use of genetic, metabolomic, and activity- and affinity-based protein profiling to elucidate the mechanism of action of clinical and experimental antimicrobial agents.
* Host-pathogen interactions — tools for studying host-pathogen interactions, cellular biochemistry of hosts and pathogens, and molecular interactions of pathogens with host microbiota.
* Small molecule vaccine adjuvants for infectious disease.
* Viral and bacterial biochemistry and molecular biology.