Study finds religion actually tends to make kids less generous

Religious parents have lots of reasons for wanting to bring their kids up within their chosen faith, and one of those reasons will often be the desire to ensure that their child grows up to become a generous, fair-minded and altruistic individual.

more…

from the link

“Our findings contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others,” said Jean Decety, a professor in psychology and psychiatry at the University of Chicago. “In our study, kids from atheist and non-religious families were, in fact, more generous.”

another snippet

The religious kids were also more likely to favour stronger punishments for the anti-social behaviour and interpersonal harm they witnessed in the animations – and were harsher in their judgment than non-religious children when it came to assessing the meanness of characters onscreen bumping into one another.

>Our findings contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others”

I doubt a balanced sample of people would agree it’s a common-sense and popular assumption.

So, we’ll leave it at Our findings_(it’s _their findings)

transition said:

>Our findings contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others”

I doubt a balanced sample of people would agree it’s a common-sense and popular assumption.

So, we’ll leave it at Our findings_(it’s _their findings)

I have very little doubt, about their findings.

I would expect a verifiable repeat study to find the same results.

one can always go to the primary source to check the methodology.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7

then one can comment as to whether the study has any significance.

I work with a few people who are church going christians. They’re all very nice people and very easy to get along with. I keep quiet about the fact that I make Dawkins look pious :)

>I have very little doubt, about their findings.

I suppose the study adjusted for generous idealizations, and good manners (you know, minus common patronizing dissemblings), and everyone asked about altruism (however that were extracted) did know what that is in practical terms.

Maybe its about time we thought of a royal commission into human rights conflicts within religions in Australia and also the negative and positive effects of religion on people

Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is always fatal.

bob(from black rock) said:

Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is always fatal.

So true.

sorta territory of motivational theory I suppose

full text from the source

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982215011677%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Honestly I can’t say i’ve ever felt or believed anyone religious was (likely to be) more altruistic and kind toward others.

Maybe I came down with the last rain.

But i’d have to think about it more, regress myself.

I’d expect it’s not unique to chidren influenced by religion, that premature right-thinking (of sorts) might tend less kindness and altruism.

It’s a big ask of young children to be doing God’s good work, I think.

Religions are, (or want to be) multi -national corporations.

well, it does say “common” and not “universal” so i guess that not all people will subscribe to this belief. i would also think that as most of the world’s population is religious that this misconception is “common” because of that fact, and those that don’t subscribe to this common belief may most likely be atheists.

ChrispenEvan said:

well, it does say “common” and not “universal” so i guess that not all people will subscribe to this belief. i would also think that as most of the world’s population is religious that this misconception is “common” because of that fact, and those that don’t subscribe to this common belief may most likely be atheists.

what, sorta like TV projects lots of people are watching us, when most people most of the time are not.

you need to read the qualifiers.

ChrispenEvan said:

you need to read the qualifiers.

yeah neuron’ not firing real well today

was in the back of me head that (some) religious people may feel threatened in this day’n age, like a minority, or dwindling minority

i’d think that over the last thirty-five years (for example) that secularizing forces have strongly influenced religion, some’d involve reactions to, some’d involve incorporation of motivation theory/ies floating around in more secular culture.

we’ve just come out the otherside of probably a half century of cultural determinism (is my view), and given religion tends to load that way off the bat i’d expect some latency/distortion.

the modern world is (again my view) sort of pounds away with a physicalism, which might be said to have about it a hostility to that metaphysical.