Paul Bloom - Religion, Morality, Evolution (Annual Review of Psychology, 2012) PDF

PS63CH08-Bloom ARI 31 October 2011 11:26
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Religion, Morality, Evolution
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online, Paul Bloom
including:
Other articles in this volume Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520;
by Yale University - STERLING CHEMISTRY LIBRARY on 01/18/12. For personal use only.
Top cited articles email: paul.bloom@yale.edu

Top downloaded articles
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:179-199. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Our comprehensive search
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012. 63:17999 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on altruism, atheism, faith, kindness, prejudice, religiosity, supernatural
September 21, 2011
belief
The Annual Review of Psychology is online at
psych.annualreviews.org Abstract
This articles doi: How did religion evolve? What effect does religion have on our moral
10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100334
beliefs and moral actions? These questions are related, as some scholars
Copyright c 2012 by Annual Reviews. propose that religion has evolved to enhance altruistic behavior toward
All rights reserved
members of ones group. I review here data from survey studies (both
0066-4308/12/0110-0179$20.00 within and across countries), priming experiments, and correlational
studies of the effects of religion on racial prejudice. I conclude that
religion has powerfully good moral effects and powerfully bad moral
effects, but these are due to aspects of religion that are shared by other
human practices. There is surprisingly little evidence for a moral effect
of specically religious beliefs.
179
not talked about. Many would go further

Contents and insist that religion isnt a t topic for
science at all. To study it as a psychologist
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
is to commit the sins of scientism and re-
TWO PUZZLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
ductionism (see Wieseltier 2006 for such an
Religion and Morality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
attack).
Evolution of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Since this article explores religious belief
SENSES OF RELIGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
and practice, its worth addressing this concern
RELIGION AND MORALITY:
at the outset. One way to do so is to insist on
POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS . . . . . 184
a distinction made by David Hume. In 1757,
MORALITY AND THE
Hume began The Natural History of Religion
EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN
with this: As every enquiry which regards reli-
OF RELIGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
gion is of the utmost importance, there are two
MORALITY WITHOUT
questions in particular which challenge our at-
RELIGION? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
tention, to wit, that concerning its foundation
RELIGION AND GOODNESS,
in reason, and that concerning its origin in hu-
WITHIN AND ACROSS
man nature (p. 21).
COUNTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
There is a lot to be said about Humes rst
RELIGION AND GOODNESS,
question and whether it is the proper focus of
LABORATORY
empirical inquiry. Some scholars believe that
MANIPULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
religions foundation in reason falls within
RELIGION, INGROUPS,
the realm of science, while others disagree.
AND OUTGROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
But the second questionreligions origin in
EXPLAINING THE COMPLEX
human natureis bread-and-butter psychol-
EFFECTS OF RELIGION . . . . . . . . 192
ogy. How could psychology not address such
DEBATING THE MORAL
an important domain of belief, motivation, and
RELEVANCE OF BELIEFS . . . . . . 194
action? Critically, the psychology of religion
can be studied independently of ones belief
about the truth of religious claims. Regardless
of whether God exists, for instance, the ques-
INTRODUCTION tion remains as to why so many people believe
Psychologists typically ignore religion. It is he does (see Bloom 2009).
barely mentioned in introductory textbooks, Why should psychologists be interested in
and the best journals rarely publish papers on the topic? One consideration is the universal-
the topic. Religion is seen as an exotic specialty ity of religious belief. Most people characterize
area, like sexual fetishes or the detection of ran- themselves as belonging to a religiontypically
dom number sequences. Christianity and Islam; about half of the
This neglect isnt limited to psychology 6.9 billion people on Earth see themselves as
proper. McCauley & Whitehouse (2005, p. 3) falling into one of these two faiths. Most peo-
note: . . . as with so many contemporary intell- ple engage in various religious practices, such
ectuals, cognitive scientists, until quite recently, as circumcision and church going and obeying
have mostly found topics like religion to be an dietary restrictions, and most people hold reli-
embarrassment. They add: No topicnot gious beliefs, such as believing in God or in life
even sex, death, taxes, or terrorismcan elicit after death.
any more quirky, unpredictable responses from Religion is ubiquitous in the United States,
intellectuals than religion. Religion is like sex where well over 90% of the population claims
to a Victorian or dreams to a behavioristan to believe in God, and about 40% believe that
awkward and embarrassing phenomenon best Jesus Christ will return to Earth in the next half
180 Bloom
century (Appiah 2006). America is admittedly and culture, without some appreciation of reli-
unusual compared to the countries of Western gion and how it works.
Europe, where the citizens are less likely to af-
liate themselves with a religion and where they
often claim not to believe in God. But looking TWO PUZZLES
at the world as a whole, it is Western Europe
Religion and Morality
that is the exception. American religiosity sits
well with the countries of Asia and Africa and The main focus of this review is the effect of
the rest of the Americasthat is, most of the religious belief and religious afliation on our
rest of the planet. moral lives. To put it crudely, does religion
Within the United States, there are politi- make people good, does it make them bad, or
cal and social divides, and these correspond to does it have no effect at all?
religiosity in the expected ways, with conser- Many people think they know the answer.
vatives being more religious than liberals. But In a 2007 Gallup poll, most Americans said that
religion is not limited to a conservative sub- they would not vote for an otherwise qualied
group. Most people who identify themselves atheist to be presidentthey were more willing
as Democrats pray daily or more often, and to vote for a Mormon, a Jew, or a homosexual.
the vast majority believe in life after death Another study found that people ranked athe-
(Waldman 2004). Even most American aca- ists lower than Muslims, recent immigrants,
demics, who are among the more secular and and homosexuals in sharing their vision of
liberal members of our species, are religious. A American society and were least willing to
recent study of 40,000 faculty members at 421 allow their children to marry them (Edgell
colleges (Lindholm et al. 2006) found that al- et al. 2006). When asked why there were so
most two thirds said that they considered them- set against atheists, the answers had to do with
selves religious either to some extent (29%) morality:
or to a great extent (35%).
In 1916, a large selection of scientists were Some people view atheists as problematic be-
asked whether they believe in God, and the cause they associate them with illegality, such
question was framed in a fairly strict manner, as drug use and prostitutionthat is, with
referring to a God who one could pray to and immoral people who threaten respectable
actually get an answer from. Even with this community from the lower end of the sta-
high bar, about 40% of scientists said yesthe tus hierarchy. Others saw atheists as rampant
same percentage found in a similar poll in materialists and cultural elitists that threaten
1996 (Larson & Witham 1997). Only when common values from abovethe ostenta-
we look at the most elite scientistsmembers tiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of
of the National Academy of Sciencesdo we consumption or the cultural elites who think
nd a strong majority of atheists and agnostics they know better than everyone else. Both
(Larson & Witham 1998). of these themes rest on a view of atheists as
Finally, religion is highly relevant to many self-interested individualists who are not con-
peoples lives (Shermer 2003). Religious activ- cerned with the common good (pp. 225, 227).
ities are a major source of everyday pleasure
(Bloom 2010). And many important contempo- This distrust of atheists is shared by many
rary social and political debatesover gay mar- scholars, including those who are otherwise
riage, abortion, capital punishment, stem cell seen as champions of the Enlightenment. John
research, the teaching of evolution in schools, Locke, for instance, did not believe that athe-
and so onare affected by peoples religious ists should be allowed to hold ofce. He wrote
views. It is impossible to make sense of most of (1689, p. 51): Promises, covenants, and oaths,
human existence, including law, morality, war, which are the bonds of human society, can have
www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 181

no hold upon an atheist (quoted by Haidt & addressed through the study of societies, not
Kesebir 2010). through psychological research into the minds
There are other scholars who hold the op- of individuals.
posite view, arguing that religion makes people Still, as we have seen, many believe that
worse. Most would agree, after all, that religious religion does have an effect on individuals
fanaticism and extremism can sometimes drive within a society, and they argue, plausibly
people to do terrible things, and many would enough, that policy implications follow from
agree as well that certain everyday religious this. Brooks (2006), for instance, argues that
practices and beliefs can have a dark side. Exam- religion makes individuals both happier and
ples might include the persecution of homosex- kinder, and concludes that organizations such
uals, the murdering of heretics, and incitements as the American Civil Liberties Union, which
to holy war. As Blaise Pascal pointed out, Men seek to staunch displays of religiosity, are harm-
never do evil so completely and cheerfully as ing society. On the other side, the so-called
when they do it from a religious conviction. New Atheists, a group that includes Christo-
Even Pope Benedict XVI conceded this, not- pher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris,
ing: There exist pathologies in religion that are and Richard Dawkins, argue that religious be-
extremely dangerous (cited by Myers 2008). lief is not just factually mistaken, but makes
Some would take this further, arguing that us worse people. If so, then rational and
religion in general has a corrosive effect of our moral individuals should work toward its
moral lives. Hitchens (2007, p. 56), for instance, demise.
argues that religion is violent, irrational, intol- To put the importance of the issue in
erant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, perspective, consider that psychologists spend
invested in ignorance and hostile to free in- great energy exploring whether violent video
quiry, contemptuous of women and coercive to- games have a negative effect on children. Could
ward children (see Myers 2008 for discussion). anyone doubt that the question of the moral
Batson (1976, p. 30) argued that religion is a effects of Islam and Christianitypractices far
double agent: Espousing the highest good, more widespread than Grand Theft Autois at
seeking to make all men brothers, religion has least as interesting?
produced the Crusades, the Inquisition and an
unending series of witch hunts. Virtually every
organized religion has been the excuse, if not Evolution of Religion
the cause, for violent, inhumane, and antisocial A second question about religion that I address
acts. here is why it exists in the rst place. Religion
To some extent, the question of the effects of poses certain difcult and intriguing puzzles for
religion falls outside the domain of psychology. anyone interested in the evolution of the human
Debates about the moral effects of religion are mind.
often framed with reference to data from his- Consider rst the problem of religious be-
tory and sociology and anthropology: Partici- liefs. Nonreligious beliefs that people hold
pants in these debates tally up all of the good and include:
all of the bad done by the religious and the non- Unsupported things fall to the ground.
religious, and argue about who comes off better
The sun rises in the morning.
in the end. (As I put it in an earlier article, I
One plus one equals two.
see your Crusades and raise you Stalin!) From
this standpoint, this question of the moral ef- Such beliefs make Darwinian sense because
fects of religion is similar to arguments over the they are true of the world in which we live.
merits of parliamentary democracy, free trade, This makes it plausible that they could either
or the legalization of drugs. These are empiri- arise directly through natural selection (because
cal questions, at least in part, but they are best it is usually adaptive for animals to know true
182 Bloom
things), or they could arise indirectly through The study of the origin of religion connects
natural selection (because we have evolved fairly in interesting ways to issues of morality. One
accurate mechanisms of perception and learn- increasingly popular theory sees religion as an
ing and can use these mechanisms to learn true evolved solution to the problem of bringing
things). together communities of people; religious be-
Consider now religious beliefs such as: lief and practice exist to instill cooperation and
God created the universe. group feelings, to motivate kindness and com-
passion to other members of ones tribe. This
When people die, they go to heaven or to
review critically evaluates this proposal.
hell.
In the course of this exploration, I discuss
Christ was born from a virgin.
a range of research programs. As noted above,
These beliefs illustrate, as H.L. Mencken there isnt as much research on the topic as one
put it, humanitys stupendous capacity for be- would hope. Furthermore, the research that
lieving the incredible. Mencken was an atheist, does exist is carried out by intellectual com-
but even a theist would agree that these beliefs munities that dont tend to read one anothers
really are incredible in the sense that they dont work. There is a tradition in social psychol-
arise in any clear way from our usual systems for ogy, for instance, that focuses on the relation-
apprehending the world. We can see dogs and ship between religion and prejudice, and there
trees; we cannot (in any literal sense) see God. is another tradition that explores the effect of
The propensity to form such beliefs could be religious primes on generosity and altruism
innate, but this raises the question of how such and they dont tend to cite one another. The
a propensity could have evolved. parable of the blind men and the elephant
Religious activities pose an even more dif- is overused, but here it seems apt. One goal
cult puzzle. Just as with beliefs, many of the of this article, then, is simply to review and
nonreligious activities that people choose to synthesize research. More ambitious goals are
do are related in some sense to the dictates to show that these ndings can be integrated
of natural selectioneating, drinking, fornicat- in a satisfying way and to make some sub-
ing, caring for children, establishing social rela- stantive claims about religion, morality, and
tionships, and so on. The psychological mech- evolution.
anisms underlying these behaviors can be seen
as adaptations. There are also many activities
that dont have obvious selectionist explana- SENSES OF RELIGION
tions, such as music and art; these can often be What do we mean when we talk about religion?
understood as by-products of adaptations (see We can consider three main senses.
Bloom 2010). One sense of religion corresponds to a
But religious activities fall into a third rather certain type of transcendent or mystical expe-
mysterious category. It is not merely that they rience. This was the topic of William Jamess
dont have obvious survival value; it is that (1902) classic The Varieties of Religious Experi-
they seem maladaptive from a Darwinian stand- ence. James was interested in the feelings, acts,
point. Religious practices include mutilating and experiences of individual men in their soli-
ones body, sacricing valuable goods, choos- tude, so far as they apprehend themselves to
ing celibacy, and so on. One might have ex- stand in relation to whatever they may con-
pected any desire to engage in such activ- sider the divine (p. 31). The contemporary
ities to be weeded out by the unforgiving scholars who continue this tradition include
sieve of natural selection. Why this hasnt hap- those who explore the emotion of awe (e.g.,
pened is another of the mysteries that any Keltner 2009) and those who study the
theory of the evolution of religion has to neuropsychology of religious visions (e.g.,
address. Persinger 2001).

A second sense has to do with supernatu- RELIGION AND MORALITY:

ral beliefs. In 1871, the anthropologist Edward POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS
Tylor argued that the minimum denition of
How might religion, characterized in any of the
religion is a belief in spiritual beings, in the su-
above ways, affect morality? How can it inu-
pernatural. Much of the work in the psychology
ence ones views about right and wrong, the
and cognitive science of religion concerns the
extent of ones altruism or selshness, and so
question of why we have such beliefswhy we
on?
believe in Gods, spirits, and so on (e.g., Bloom
One possibility emphasizes the fact that re-
2004).
ligions make explicit moral claims that their
A third conception of religion is as a certain
followers accept. Through holy texts and the
sort of social activity, what one does with other
proclamations of authority gures, religions
people. As we will see, this is the conception that
make moral claims about abortion, homosexu-
most connects with claims about the evolution

ality, duties to the poor, charity, masturbation,
of religion and its relationship to morality.
just war, and so on. People believe these claims

One can be religious in these three dis-
because, implicitly or explicitly, they trust the
tinct ways, then, and each of the three senses
sources. They accept them on faith.
of religion can exist in the absence of the oth-
This sort of deference is common; many
ers. One can experience transcendent experi-
of our moral and political and scientic be-
ence without any specic beliefs and afliation;
liefs have this sort of deferential nature, where
this is what is often meant when people describe
we hold a belief because it is associated with
themselves as spiritual. Even some ardent
our community or with people that we trust.
atheists discuss and seek out such transcendent
Upon hearing about a welfare plan proposed by
experiences, as in meditative practice. Or one
a political party, for instance, people are more
might hold supernatural beliefs without afliat-
likely to agree with the plan if it has been pro-
ing with a religion or having any transcendent
posed by their own political partyalthough,
experiencesthese individuals are what David
interestingly, they are not conscious that this is
Hume called superstitious atheists. Indeed,
occurring; they mistakenly believe that their
most who insist that they have no religious afli-
judgment is based on the objective merit of the
ation still believe that they will survive the death
program (Cohen 2003). Most people who claim
of their bodies (Putnam & Campbell 2010). Fi-
to believe in natural selection do so not because
nally, one can belong to a community that is a
they are persuaded by the dataindeed, most
religion in every sense except that its adherents
have no real understanding of what natural se-
dont engage in transcendent experience or be-
lection isbut rather because they trust the sci-
lieve in supernatural beings. Zuckerman (2008)
entists (see Bloom & Weisberg 2007).
notes that this is the case for many Christians
A second way in which religion can have
in Scandinavian countries.
an effect is by emphasizing certain aspects
As an exercise, one could continue to mix
of morality. As one case of this, Cohen &
and match, describing all eight permutations of
Rozin (2001) note that Christianity codies
the above three features. I wont do this here.
the principle that thoughts are to some extent
Note that although these notions of religion are
equivalent to actions. This is expressed in
separable, they do tend to fall together. That
Christs dictum: You have heard that it was
is, most of those who characterize themselves
said you shall not commit adultery; but I say to
as adhering to Christianity, Islam, Judaism,
you, that everyone who looks at a woman with
Hinduism, and other religions are religious in
lust for her has already committed adultery with
the sense that they have certain experiences and
her in his heart. Judaism, in contrast, focuses
that they hold certain beliefs and that they en-
less on intentions and more on actions. Cohen
gage in certain practices.
and Rozin nd that this difference has an effect
184 Bloom
on the intuitions that individual Christians outlived and outproduced our less religious
and Jews have about specic situations. For ancestors. Rather, religion emerges out of
instance, Christians and Jews have different capacities, traits, and inclinations that have
moral evaluations of a person who doesnt evolved for other purposes. It is an evolutionary
like his parents but chooses to take good care accident.
of them nonetheless. For the Christians, the More specically, the notion is that certain
persons attitude matters more than it does universal religious beliefssuch as belief in su-
for the Jewsthe Christians judge him more pernatural beings, creationism, miracles, and
negatively because of his mental states. body-soul dualismemerge as by-products of
More generally, religions tend to emphasize certain cognitive systems that have evolved for
certain aspects of morality that are less impor- understanding the physical and social world (for
tant to an atheist. These include what Shweder different versions of this proposal, see Atran
et al. (1997, p. 138) describe as an ethics of 2004; Barrett 2004; Bloom 2004, 2007, 2009;
divinity: a cluster of ethical notions that rely Boyer 2001; Evans 2000, 2001; Guthrie 1993;
on concepts such as sacred order, natural or- Kelemen 2004; Pinker 1997; Pyysiainen 2003;
der, tradition, sanctity, sin, and pollution. . . [an see Bloom 2009 for review).
ethics that] aims to protect the soul, the spirit, One of the best-known examples of this ap-
the spiritual aspects of the human agent and proach is the theory that humans are highly sen-
nature from degradation. There is an espe- sitive to cues to animacy and intention; we are
cially tight connection between religion and the constantly on the lookout for other humans and
moralization of purity, particularly in the do- nonhuman animals, for clear adaptive reasons.
mains of food and sex (see Graham & Haidt This leads us to sometimes assume the exis-
2010). tence of entities that dont really exist and hence
Finally, it might be that religion has a more provides the foundation for animism and deism
general effect. Religion might turn the dials of (Guthrie 1993; see also Barretts 2004 proposal
compassion. Religious belief and practice might of a Hyperactive Agency Detection Device). As
increase ones empathy and caring and love. It another example, I have argued that the cogni-
might also increase ones prejudice and intoler- tive systems that underlie theory of body and
ance, particularly toward those who are seen as theory of mind are functionally and neuro-
outside of the community. Such effects might logically distinct. As a consequence of this, we
be triggered by the messages that religions con- think about bodies and minds as distinct sorts of
vey or might somehow emerge from the very things, which may explain why we are natural-
nature of religious practice and activity. Much born dualists, why we so naturally believe in
of the discussion that follows focuses on this immaterial souls, in spirits, and in ghosts and
proposal. reincarnation (Bloom 2004).
When it comes to explaining religious
beliefs, such theories have the virtue of sim-
MORALITY AND THE plicity because they posit no special cognitive
EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN capacities beyond what we already have. They
OF RELIGION also have some empirical support. For instance,
One popular view among psychologists who if belief in God and other deities is caused by an
write about the evolution of religion is that overextension of social cognition, then adults
religion is an accident. Under this view, reli- who fall on the autism spectrum disorder, who
gion is a by-product of other evolved systems have diminished social cognition, should be
or traits, what is sometimes described as a less prone to believe in a feeling God, and there
spandrel (see Gould & Lewontin 1979). It is is some evidence that this is the case (Bering
not the case, under this view, that humans are 2002). Women are arguably more sensitive to
religious because our more religious ancestors the mental states of others (see Baron-Cohen

2003), which is nicely consistent with the well- can emerge and stabilize (Finkel et al. 2010,
known nding that women tend to be more p. 290).1
religious than men. Further, the development Other religious activities create bonds be-
of religious and supernatural beliefs in children tween members of a group. This might also
seems to track the emergence of more general help with the free-rider problemsto the ex-
theory-of-mind capacities (e.g., Bloom 2004, tent that you feel emotionally close to another,
Lane et al. 2010). you are less likely to betray him or her. Some
One problem with this accident view, how- ritual activities generate what Durkheim (1912)
ever, is its narrowness. At best, it explains reli- called collective effervescence. Dancing and
gious belief. But it says nothing about transcen- chanting are the best cases of this. Most of us
dent experience, religious rituals, or the social are familiar with the emotional rush of linking
nature of religion. arms and dancing at a Jewish wedding, or be-
Over the past decade or so, an alterna- ing at a rave, or dancing in a pub with drunken
tive perspective on religion has emerged that friends. Laboratory studies nd this synchrony
might ll some of these gaps. Religion, under has prosocial effects, leading people to sacri-
this view, is a constellation of behaviors and ce more money to others in economic games
thoughts that have evolved to benet groups, (Wiltermuth & Heath 2009). Indeed, even sim-
and, in particular, to help solve the problem of ple mimicry can increase empathy (Chartrand
free-riders. A community works best if every- & Bargh 1999). The reason why this works is
one cooperates on certain tasks, such as group unclear; one possibility is that it is due to a glitch
hunting, care of children, and warfare. But indi- in the system. If I dance with others, and they
vidual members of the community might ben- move with me, their bodies moving as I intend
et from defecting, from accepting the bene- my own body to move, it confuses me into ex-
ts of this cooperative behavior without paying panding the boundaries of my self to include
the cost. Religion is arguably a solution to the them (Bloom 2010). Regardless of its cause, re-
problem of defection. As Haidt (2007) nicely ligions might exploit this fact about our minds
put it, Religions, generally speaking, work to in order to increase ingroup solidarity.
suppress our inner chimp and bring out our in- To show that this evolutionary theory is cor-
ner bee (see also Haidt 2012 for an extended rect, however, its not enough to demonstrate
discussion). that such activities bring people together as a
This might be one function of rituals (see cohesive and cooperative group. One also has
Alcorta & Sosis 2005, Atran & Norenzayan to present evidence that this is why these activi-
2004, Bulbulia 2004, Irons 2004; see Finkel ties have evolved in the rst place; its what they
et al. 2010 for review). Consider again the sorts are for. Such evidence is hard to nd, but not im-
of activities that people do when they are mem- possible. One prediction that the evolutionary
bers of a religion: cutting away part of ones account does make, for instance, is that the ex-
genitals (or ones childs genitals), spending a tent to which religious rituals are practiced by a
potentially productive day doing nothing, re-
fusing to eat tasty and nutritious foods, endur-
ing agonizing initiation rites, and so on. The 1
One different interpretation of these rituals builds on the
painful, difcult, and time-consuming aspects classic cognitive dissonance nding that if you sacrice to
of these rituals seem entirely mysterious until belong to a group, youll be more committed to that group
you consider that these negative aspects may (e.g., Festinger 1957). Someone who gives up time to work
for a political party, say, will be more committed to the party
be the very point behind their existence. From than someone who gets a salary; a patient who pays for ther-
a costly signaling perspective, these serve as apy will value it more than someone who gets it for free. This
hurdles that weed out the uncommitted: If is why fraternities and other communities have painful and
humiliating hazing rituals. From this perspective, participa-
fullling these obligations is more costly for tion in unpleasant religious rituals can be seen as a form of
nonbelievers than believers, then cooperation hazing, evolved to increase delity to a group.
186 Bloom
group should relate to the success of that group. less and give more when we think someone else
Consistent with this, religious groups that have is watching. And so belief in an omniscient God
many costly rituals tend to outlast those that might be a clever mechanismemerging in bi-
have fewer (Sosis & Bressler 2003). ological evolution or cultural evolutionthat
I have been framing this proposal so far in exploits this fact about human nature. Similarly,
terms of whats good for the group, as this is it is not hard to see how belief in heaven and hell
the approach that many of its proponents take. can play a similar role ( Johnson 2005, John-
A propensity for religious ritual is in our genes, son & Bering 2006). Just like rituals then, reli-
then, not because of the advantages it gives to gious beliefs might evolve to serve a prosocial
individuals, but because of the advantages that function.
it gives to the groups that the individuals be-
long to (e.g., Wilson 2002, 2007). Such an ap-
peal to group selection is controversial, to say MORALITY WITHOUT

the least (Williams 1966; see Sober & Wilson RELIGION?
2011 for discussion). And many would argue How can we tell if religion has an effect on
that its unnecessary here and that one can ex- morality?
plain the evolution of social traits that suppress It is difcult. The standard way to look at the
free-riders using a more standard Darwinian effect of X on human behavior (where X might
approach (e.g., Cosmides 1989). This is an in- be exposure to violent video games, testos-
teresting debate, though unfortunately one that terone, spanking, psychoanalysis. . . or religion)
falls outside the scope of this review. is to compare people who have been exposed
A quite different approach is sometimes to X to those who havent. This can be done
known as cultural group selection, (Boyd through correlational studies (do children who
& Richerson 2002, Norenzayan & Shariff have been spanked turn out differently from
2008). Religion, including religious rituals, those who havent?) or, better, through con-
might emerge through cultural evolution: trolled experiments (what happens if you give
Societies that have religion would outlast a randomly selected subset of patients a certain
those that do not. This process can occur form of therapy?).
without genetic change, and hence, unlike But what if X is everywhere? What if ev-
the biological approach, this cultural theory eryone is exposed to X? The dilemma we face
does not predict that our psychologies would is that religion seems to be inescapable. As de
be naturally oriented to the creation and Waal (2010) puts it, It is impossible to know
practice of religion. Note, however, that what morality would look like without religion.
biological evolution and cultural evolution are It would require a visit to a human culture that
compatible. It might be, for instance, that some is not now and never was religious. There are
aspects of religion initially evolved through of course relatively atheistic communities and
natural selection and then cultural evolution individuals, but many of the customs and morals
kicked in to enhance and transform them (see that they adhere to have emerged long before
Norenzayan & Gervais 2012 for discussion). they became atheistic. One might argue then
In both its biological and cultural forms, this that the kindness (or cruelty) of such individ-
free-rider theory focuses on rituals and on com- uals and societies exists only because they ride
munity. What about supernatural beliefs? Its the coattails of religion.
possible that these too can be seen as existing for Still, we do have some access to populations
a social function. One specic proposal is that without religion. Indeed, de Waal himself, in
a belief in an omniscient supernatural entity the same article, goes on at length about altru-
might make people nicer to those with whom ism, empathy, and even rudimentary notions of
they are in constant contact (Bering 2006, 2011; fairness and justice in chimpanzees, bonobos,
Norenzayan & Shariff 2008). After all, we cheat and monkeys (see also de Waal 1996, 2010).

Consider also the demonstrations of moral, or more likely to volunteer, to donate blood, and
at least proto-moral, behavior in babies and to give to the homeless. And they are happier.
toddlers, including empathetic responses to the In a 2004 study, the secular are twice as likely
pain of others (e.g., Hoffman 2000), sponta- to say that they feel like failures, whereas the
neous altruistic behavior (e.g., Warneken & religious are twice as likely to say that they are
Tomasello 2006), and some capacity to judge very happy with their lives.
individuals on the basis of their behavior to oth- These conclusions were recently supple-
ers (e.g., Hamlin et al. 2007). mented by a large set of analyses reported by
We can be condent, then, that at least some Putnam & Campbell (2010). They nd that giv-
good behavior exists prior to religion. This re- ing to religious charities is correlated with giv-
futes the strong claim that morality requires re- ing to nonreligious charities and that frequent
ligion. Then again, an advocate of the impor- churchgoers are particularly likely to give to the
tance of religion to morality will respond by needy, the elderly, and the young. And again,
pointing out that there are all sorts of moral this holds even when one rules out other fac-
capacities that chimps and babies dont have, tors, such that the American religious are more
and it is at least possible that the reason they likely than average to be older, female, South-
arent fully moral beings is that they dont have ern, and African American. These data suggest
religion. that there is a moral boost to being religious
What about studies with adult humans? and that its not restricted to ones ingroup, but
Since researchers who study this population rather it applies more generally.2
arent able to contrast X from non-X, they do In a critical discussion of Brooks (2006),
the next best thing and compare more X with Norenzayan & Shariff (2008) note that these
less X. And so the studies that explore the effect data are based on self-report. This raises the
of religion on our moral lives do so by com- concern that religion might not lead to an actual
paring individuals within cultures that used to increase in altruism, but rather to an increase in
be religious but now are not entirely so (such how much people believe they are altruistic or
as Danes) versus cultures that are more heartily how prone they are to say that they are altruis-
religious (such as Americans). Within a culture tic. This point applies to Putnam & Campbell
they compare religious people with less reli- (2010) as well. In support of their concern,
gious people; in priming studies they explore Norenzayan & Shariff (2008) note that the re-
the effects of getting people to think about research of Batson and his colleagues (e.g., Batson
ligious notions more than they would normally et al. 1989, 1993) nds that although religious
do. This is the research that is described below. people report being more altruistic, they are no
nicer in laboratory conditions.
This is a serious concern. On the other hand,
RELIGION AND GOODNESS, there are some objective data for the connection
WITHIN AND ACROSS
COUNTRIES
One specic question concerns the effect of re- 2
As an aside, the major conclusion of Brooks (2006) wasnt
ligion on a persons kindness to strangers. Are about religion; it was about political orientation. His answer
to the question Who really cares? was: political conserva-
the religious more generous and more likely to tives (at the top of the cover of the paperback version is, The
volunteer to help others? Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism). But Put-
In his inuential book Who Really Cares?, nam & Campbell (2010) point out that in their own datasets,
and in the datasets that Brooks himself used, the moral ad-
Brooks (2006) draws upon existing datasets and vantage of political conservatives exists only because of the
concludes that, controlling for education, age, correlation with religiosity: Holding religiosity constant,
gender, income, and politics, religious people ideology has little signicant effect on total giving or total
volunteering but liberals assuredly give and volunteer more
care more. They donate more money to char- for nonreligious causes than conservatives do (p. 458; empha-
ities, including nonreligious charities; they are sis added).
188 Bloom
between religion and altruism: Data from the RELIGION AND GOODNESS,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) indicate that the LABORATORY MANIPULATIONS
more religious states give more to charity than We can now move from the rather messy cor-
do the less religious states (Brooks 2006). Since relational data and turn to laboratory research.
the IRS requires receipts for charitable giving, There is a long tradition of experimental stud-
their data suggest that there is a real difference. ies that explore the role of religion on good
Also, there is real-world evidence that reli- actions. Many of these studies work by eliciting
gion is a force for charitable giving. It is not religious thoughts and exploring their effects.
unusual for hospitals and other charitable or- The best-known study is famous for its
ganizations to be religiously based, with the clevernessand for its null effect. Darley &
Salvation Army being a prominent example. Batson (1973) tested male seminary students,
And some degree of charity is proscribed in all telling them that they had to make a short pre-
the major religious faiths, as in the parables of sentation, either about the jobs available for
Christ, the Jewish notion of tzedaka, and the
seminary students or about the parable of the

Islamic pillar of Zakat. Good Samaritan, in which Jesus tells about a
Other analyses provide a different perspec- traveler lying unconscious on the road, attacked
tive, however. Paul (2005) presents an analy- by thieves, and the good man who stops to help
sis of 18 democracies and nds that the more him. The students were then told to go to an-
atheist societies are better off with regard to other location, and some were told to hurry,
several objective measures of societal health, that they were already late. On the way, all
such as murder and suicide rates, extent of sex- groups of students passed someone slumped in
ually transmitted diseases, abortion, and teen a doorway, a confederate playing a part of the
pregnancy. This conclusion has been criticized; victim.
among other concerns, it is based on a highly The main nding was that students who
selective sample of countries ( Jensen 2006). were told to hurry were more likely to pass
Still, it does show that religion isnt essential the victim bythat aspect of the situation in-
for a moral community. Along the same lines, uenced their behavior. But whether or not
Zuckerman (2008) provides an extensive case they were told the story of the Good Samar-
study of the Danes and the Swedes. These are itan (which, of course, was directly relevant to
among the least religious of contemporary hu- the situation they were in) had no effect. The
mans. They tend not to go to church or pray authors note that, on several occasions, a sem-
in the privacy of their own homes; they tend inary student going to give his talk on the para-
not to believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by ble of the Good Samaritan literally stepped over
any reasonable standard, they are nice to one the victim as he hurried on his way! (p. 107).
another. Even without belief in a God looming In a reanalysis, however, Greenwald (1975)
over them, they murder and rape one another noted that the sample size was small, and he re-
signicantly less frequently than the much more analyzed the data using different methods. Al-
religious Americans do. though being told to hurry clearly did have an
Although it is possible that these correla- effect, Greenwald concluded that it was prema-
tions exist because religion has a negative ef- ture to dismiss the possibility that reading the
fect on a society, it is more plausible, as Paul parable actually did increase the odds of help-
(2005) suggests, that some drop in religious ing. Darley and Batson might well have been
belief is caused by the prosperity and social the rst psychologists to successfully use reli-
health of a communityperhaps rich and stable gion to prime moral behavior.
Western democracies are likely to abandon or Several have done so since then. Mazar
reject religious ideals. Paul (2010, p. 642) takes et al. (2008) asked subjects to either write
this further: Prosperous modernity is proving down ten books they read in high school or
to be the nemesis of religion.

write down the Ten Commandments. When There is reason to doubt, however, that the
later put in a situation where they could cheat, felt presence of a supernatural watcher is solely
those in the Ten Commandments condition responsible for the priming effects. Other stud-
were less likely to do so. Bering et al. (2005) ies nd that one can get the same effect with
confronted children and adults with supposed secular moral primes. Shariff & Norenzayan
supernatural beings. When adults are told that (2007) replicated their nding in a second study
there is a ghost in the laboratory, they are when subjects scrambled sentences with the
less likely to cheat on a computer task. And primes: civic, jury, court, police, and contract.
when children, ages 56 and 89, are told that Mazar et al. (2008) found that getting subjects
they are in the presence of an invisible agent to sign a brief statement acknowledging their
(Princess Alice), they are slower to cheat commitment to the local university honor code
than are those not given this information. (even if their university didnt in fact have an
Indeed, when the skeptical childrenwho did honor code) caused a similar drop in cheating.
not believe in Princess Alicewere removed
from the analysis, the effect of the presence

of this invisible gure was the same as the RELIGION, INGROUPS,
presence of an actual adult (Piazza et al. 2011). AND OUTGROUPS
Using a scrambled sentence task, Shariff
The work so far suggests that religion causes
& Norenzayan (2007) found that getting sub-
a general boost in moral behaviors, such as al-
jects to unscramble sentences that included
truism and reluctance to cheat. But the evolu-
religious wordsspirit, divine, God, sacred,
tionary theories described above make a pre-
and prophetmade them more generous in
diction about the limits of religiously triggered
a dictator game in which they were free to
niceness. If religion is an adaptation that binds
give an anonymous stranger as much money
groups together, it shouldnt lead to indiscrim-
as they wanted. Randolph-Seng & Nielsen
inate kindness. Rather, it should drive one to
(2007) found that subliminal priming of re-
favor the ingroup.
ligious wordsashing them on a screen for
One doesnt have to be steeped in evolution-
80 millisecondsmade subjects less likely to
ary theory to make this prediction. Critics of
cheat on a subsequent task. Pichon et al. (2007)
religion have long emphasized its power to di-
found that when primed with religious words,
vide people, to motivate hatred toward heretics
people were later more interested in helping to
and apostates, and to fuel violence and genocide
distribute charity-related information.
and war. After all, religious moral teachings are
Why do these primes cause these effects?
often explicitly parochial. As Graham & Haidt
One possibility is that they make people think
(2010) summarize:
about an invisible and omnipresent God. Sub-
jects believe, perhaps unconsciously, that they
are being watched, which leads to better behav- Many of the religious commandments to treat
ior. This meshes well with ndings that even others compassionately and fairly are limited
subtle cues to the presence of otherssuch as to the treatment of other individuals within
photographs of eyes or even dot patterns that the religious community; for instance, the
resemble eyesaffect moral behavior. People Hebrew Bibles love your neighbor as your-
are more generous, for instance, in a computer self (Leviticus 19:18) was intended to apply
task when they are exposed to eye spots on only to other Israelites. . . The Quran com-
the screen (Haley & Fessler 2005). And they mands, Do not take the Jews and Christians
are less likely to take coffee without paying as allies: they are allies only to each other. Any-
(Bateson et al. 2006) or to litter (Ernest-Jones one who takes them as an ally becomes one of
et al. 2010) when in the presence of posters with themGod does not guide such wrongdoers
eyes on them. (5:51; see also 29:6869).
190 Bloom
One might ask how religiosity affects ones Moreover, in most analyses, the relationship
attitudes toward others who dont belong to the between religion and prejudice has declined
same faith. Does being very Catholic make one since 1964.
more prone to despise Jews, or vice versa? But One wonders also about the extent that these
the focus of most research in social psychol- studies are nding negative effects of religion
ogy concerns the effects of religiosity on racial per se as opposed to other factors that are cor-
prejudice (see also Batson & Stocks 2005 for related with religiosity. Unlike the recent stud-
review), and it is this line of work that I review ies reported by Brooks (2006) and Putnam &
here. Campbell (2010) discussed above, there is rarely
This topic was rst explored in detail in any attempt in these earlier studies to factor
Gordon Allports classic book, The Nature of out considerations such as age, race, political
Prejudice (Allport 1954). In his original studies orientation, and so on. It might well be, for in-
in the 1940s and 1950s, peoples responses to stance, that those with no religious afliation
the question To what degree has religion been have more cosmopolitan attitudes and experi-
an inuence in your upbringing? correlated ences than those who are religious, and it is this
with prejudicial attitudes toward other groups that leads them to be less prejudiced, not their
(see also Allport & Kramer 1946). Subsequent lack of religiosity per se. More generally, there
research found that this was true as well in the is a clear correlation between religiosity (and
1970s: Relative to those whites who claimed to particularly religious fundamentalism) and po-
have no religious afliation, white Protestants litical conservatism and authoritarian attitudes,
were more likely to disapprove of interracial both of which correlate with negative attitudes
marriage, and white Protestants and Catholics toward racial minorities (see Jost et al. 2008,
were more likely to agree that most blacks Napier & Jost 2008).
have less in-born ability to learn (Putnam & Still, there is priming data suggesting that
Campbell 2010). And a recent meta-analysis religion in itself can evoke prejudice. In what
(Hall et al. 2010) looked at 55 studies between is, to my knowledge, the only study of this sort,
1964 and 2008 and found that a small but sta- Johnson et al. (2010) found that ashing reli-
tistically signicant relationship exists between gious words (such as church, gospel, prayer) on
certain forms of religiosity and racial prejudice. a screen for 35 milliseconds increases prejudice
Some caveats are needed, however. In the by whites toward African Americans on a range
Hall et al. meta-analysis, not all form of reli- of overt and implicit measures.
giosity had this effect on prejudice: It was found Also, a provocative series of studies by
for extrinsic religiosity, dened as an instru- Ginges et al. (2009) found strong correlations
mental approach to religion that is motivated by between religiosity and support for suicide
external factors such as desires for social status, bombings. Interestingly, though, only certain
security, and acceptance from others (Allport measures of religiosity had an effect. Ginges
& Ross 1967, p. 127) and for religious fun- et al. found that for Palestinian Muslim adults,
damentalism, dened as an unquestioning, frequency of mosque attendance predicted
unwavering certainty in basic religious truths support for suicide attacks but frequency of
(Altemeyer & Hunsberger 1992, p. 127). But prayer did not. (They also found that students
greater intrinsic religiositybeing commit- who attended mosque more than once a day
ted to religion as an end in itself (p. 128) were over three times more likely than those
was negatively associated with prejudice, as was who didnt to believe that Islam requires
Quest, a notion introduced by Batson (1976, suicide attacks.) Ginges et al. also tested Israeli
p. 128), which corresponds to a readiness to Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza, asking
face existential questions, acknowledge reli- about their support for the 1994 suicide attack
gious doubts, and accept change (see Sedikides by Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 Muslims
& Gebauer 2010 for review and discussion). in the Cave of the Patriarchs in the West Bank.

When primed with thoughts about synagogue nature of religious beliefs and practices and
attendance, they were more likely to describe the explicit religious ideologies that privilege
the act as heroic than when primed with themselves over others (Hall et al. 2010, Harris
thoughts about prayer. 2004).
Finally, Ginges et al. (2009) used survey data How can we explain these seemingly contra-
from Indonesian Muslims, Mexican Catholics, dictory effects?
British Protestants, Russian Orthodox in A close look at the data suggests a reason-
Russia, Israeli Jews, and Indian Hindus to ably coherent account, largely along the lines
explore the relationship between prayer fre- proposed by Graham & Haidt (2010). Religion
quency and frequency of religious attendance exerts many of its effects, good and bad,
on negative feelings toward other groups, as through its force as a social glue: To belong to
measured by their responses to the questions a religion is to belong to a social group whose
I would be willing to die for my God/beliefs members are close to one another, who share
and I blame people of other religions for much rituals and meet regularly, and hence are more
of the trouble in this world. Once again, reli- likely to be generous toward each other and
gious attendance was a positive predictor while less likely to cheat one anotherand, under
regular prayer was not. some circumstances, are more likely to be nasty
toward others.
From this perspective, it is the community
EXPLAINING THE COMPLEX associated with religion that mainly drives its
EFFECTS OF RELIGION effects, not the belief system. As support for
The available research tells us two things about this, Putnam & Campbell (2010) collected ex-
the moral effects of religion. tensive data on theological views and practices,
First, religion makes people nicer. There is asking people about their beliefs in life after
evidence from studies of charitable giving that death, heaven, and hell; in the importance of
religious people within the United States de- religion, evolution, and special creation; and in
vote more time and resources to helping oth- the importance of God to morality. It turns out
ers than the nonreligious. Such studies rely on that none of these beliefs correlate with behav-
self-report, but they are backed by laboratory iors having to do with volunteering and chari-
demonstrations that religious primes increase table giving. Community is everything: Once
moral behaviors such as generosity to strangers we know how observant a person is in terms
and reduce immoral behaviors such as cheating. of church attendance, nothing that we can dis-
All of this makes sense in light of the universal- cover about the content of her religious faith
ist and enlightened moral notions encoded in all adds anything to our understanding or predic-
of the major religions (Waldron 2010, Wright tion of her good neighborliness (Putnam &
2009). Campbell 2010, p. 467). They later add, In
Second, religion doesnt make people nicer. fact, the statistics suggest that even an atheist
In laboratory studies, secular primes work who happened to become involved in the so-
just as well to improve behavior as religious cial life of the congregation (perhaps through
primes. Countries lled with the devout, such a spouse) is much more likely to volunteer in
as the United States, are in many objective a soup kitchen than the most fervent believer
regards morally worse than more atheistic who prays alone. It is religious belongingness
countries, such as Sweden. There is evidence that matters for neighborliness, not religious
that certain sorts of religiosity are associated believing (p. 473).
with increased prejudice toward others. And The same point holds for the data reviewed
attendance in religious ceremonies is correlated by Brooks (2006) that nd that the religious
with an endorsement of suicide bombings. All are happier and more generous than the secu-
of this makes sense in light of the parochial lar. These surveys do not dene religious and
192 Bloom
secular in terms of belief. They dene it in are also religiousin precisely the sense that
terms of religious attendance. matters for morality.
This emphasis of community can provide a Community can also explain the uglier side
different perspective on why American atheists of religion. Recall the Ginges et al. (2009)
are less generous. Its not that they have no ndings discussed above. Religious devotion,
sense of right and wrong or are cold-blooded as measured by frequency of prayer, had no
self-maximizers. It is that they have been left effect on support for suicide bombing, but
out of the dominant modes of American to- religious participation did. Contrary to the
getherness. And, as P.Z. Myers (2007) puts it, claims of Dawkins (2006), Harris (2004), and
[S]cattered individuals who are excluded from others, Ginges et al. (2009) conclude, the
communities do not receive the benets of com- relationship between religion and support
munity, nor do they feel willing to contribute for suicide attacks is real, but is orthogonal
to the communities that exclude them. to devotion to particular religious belief

If this view is correct, then the speci- (p. 230). It is commitment to the social group
cally religious aspects of religionsupernatural that matters, as reected by participation in

beliefs and sacred texts and transcendent group activities and religious rituals. This
experiencesmight play little role in its moral commitment might also motivate milder forms
force. Indeed, Putnam and his colleagues of denigration of outgroups, as reected in the
(Putnam 2000, Putnam & Campbell 2010) use attitudes toward American atheists.
data from survey studies to argue that any form This last point raises a question: If reli-
of voluntary association with other people is in- gion is such an insular force, why isnt there
tegral to a fullled and productive existence. a greater effect of religion on prejudice in the
This makes us smarter, healthier, safer, richer, studies of Americans? As noted above, such an
and better able to govern a just and stable effect exists, but it is small, restricted to cer-
democracy (Putnam 2000, p. 290). Putnam ar- tain sorts of religious orientations, and perhaps
gues, for instance, that membership in a bowl- a by-product of the fact that religiosity is corre-
ing leaguesecular, but socialis just as much lated with other traits, such as certain political
of a boost to charitable giving as is afliation attitudes.
with a religious community. One explanation has to do with the sort
The importance of socialityand the rela- of prejudice that these studies explore. The
tive unimportance of religious beliefis also research reviewed above was done with white
reected in the data from the Scandinavian Christians, exploring their attributes and
countries. These data were framed above as behaviors toward blacks. Even if religion
showing that religion isnt needed for a society naturally reduces ones compassion toward
to be civil, nonviolent, and, by most standards, other groups, then it might not have a negative
morally good. But we can now think about it effect in this case because these blacks are seen
in a more nuanced way as having to do with as in fact belonging to their groupthey are
the type of religion that is relevant. Zuckerman also, for the most part, Christian.3 Religion can
(2008) points out that most Danes and Swedes establish boundaries then, but it can also dis-
have their babies baptized, give some of their solve them. As Allport (1954, p. 444) famously
income to the church, and feel attached to their put it, The role of religion is paradoxical. It
religious communitythey are Christian, they makes prejudice and it unmakes prejudice.
just dont believe in God. (He suggests that
Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American
Jews, who are also relatively secularized in
3
belief and practice, have strong communal This predicts that one would nd more antiblack prejudice
in the United States by Jews and Hindus, because these in-
feelings, and tend to be well behaved.) The dividuals dont tend to share the same religion as American
Scandinavians might be atheists, then, but they blacks.

Much of this is consistent with the evolu- deny, after all, that some religious beliefs moti-
tionary theory reviewed above, where religion vate how people think and act. Consider suicide
is a solution to the problem of free-riders, a attacks. Ginges et al. (2009) found that levels
mechanism to bring people together. To put it of devotion to religious belief are unrelated to
differently, if it turned out that religion has no support for suicide attacks, but as Liddle et al.
positive ingroup moral effectsor no negative (2010) point out in response, this doesnt en-
outgroup effectsthis evolutionary account tail that religious belief itself is irrelevant. It
would be effectively refuted. The nding that is likely, after all, that someone who believes
social aspects of religion are so linked to their that God wants them to kill indels is going
moral effects supports the hypothesis that this to be a lot more sympathetic toward killing
is their evolved function, though of course it indels than someone who doesnt believe in
does not prove it. God. Dawkins (2006, p. 348) might be right
What about the claim that supernatural then when he concludes: Suicide bombers do
beliefsbelief in gods, afterlife, spirits, mira- what they do because they really believe what
cles, and so onhave also evolved to motivate they were taught in their religious schools: that
moral behavior? This hypothesis fares less duty to God exceeds all other priorities, and
well. The increased generosity that one nds that martyrdom in his service will be rewarded
when people are exposed to religious primes in the gardens of Paradise.
is sometimes attributed to the notion of a Consider as an analogy that one might
supernatural watcherthe primes make one engage in a demonstration or counter-
think of the presence of God, ones behavior demonstration at an abortion clinic for all sorts
is no longer anonymous, and so people act of reasons. But surely one relevant considera-
nicer. But the problem with this account is that tion is what one thinks about abortion. It might
secular moral primesrelating to the legal well be that the intensity of ones abortion-
system, say, or to honor codeshave the same related beliefs doesnt correlate well with the
effect as religious primes. It doesnt seem, then, likelihood that a demonstrator will show up or
that a belief in a supernatural being plays any turn violent, in the same way that the inten-
distinctive role here. sity of religious devotion doesnt correlate with
Note also that the idea of omniscient moral support for suicide bombings. But it would be
God is a relatively recent inventionthe gods a mistake to conclude from this that the belief
of hunter-gatherers were far less impressive itself is irrelevant.
(Wright 2009). Moreover, many current hu- Some would take this further and argue that
mans do not believe in an omnipotent God; the moral effects of religious beliefs are par-
they instead hold animistic or polytheistic be- ticularly potent, and pernicious, because they
liefs. For these reasons, a propensity to believe are unmoored from the everyday world. Re-
in a moralizing God is unlikely to be the prod- ligion, after all, trafcs in notions such as life
uct of natural selection. after death, the desires of invisible deities,
and the demands of thousand-year-old texts.
The argument of Timothy Dwight, the Pres-
DEBATING THE MORAL ident of Yale from 1795 to 1817, against the
RELEVANCE OF BELIEFS morality of the smallpox vaccine (If God
The most controversial claim made above had decreed from all eternity that a certain
is that religious beliefs play little substan- person should die of smallpox, it would be
tive role in religions moral effects. I want to a frightful sin to avoid and annul that de-
conclude by considering, and responding to, cree by the trick of vaccination) seems like a
counter-arguments. specically religious argument (see Hitchens
The importance of religious beliefs might 2007). As the physicist Steven Weinberg
seem obvious to some. It seems perverse to (1999) put it, With or without religion, you
194 Bloom
would have good people doing good things and with physicist Freeman Dysons (2006) addi-
evil people doing evil things. But for good peo- tion to the Weinberg quote above, And for bad
ple to do evil things, that takes religion. people to do good thingsthat takes religion.
The defense of the relevance of religious be- It turns out then that scholars who disagree
lief has so far been framed in terms of its neg- radically about the valence of the moral effects
ative effects. But it is also defended by schol- of religion would nonetheless agree that reli-
ars who think that religious belief has had gion has its effects, at least in part, through the
a uniquely positive effect on our lives. Legal substantive claims that it makes about what is
scholar Jeremy Waldron (2010, p. 10) provides right and what is wrong. If the relevance of
an articulate defense of this view: religious belief doesnt show up in the stud-
ies and surveys of empirical researchers, it is
Challenging the limited altruism of comfort- because the researchers are asking the wrong
able community has been one of the great questionsfor instance, by confusing intensity
achievements of the Western religions. I know of belief with the presence of belief.
the Jewish and Christian traditions best, and Alternatively, though, we might be overes-
what I have in mind are the prescriptions of timating the power of belief. Nobody could
the Torah, the uncompromising preaching of doubt that some actionsgood and badare
the Prophets and the poetry of the Psalmist motivated by specic religious beliefs. But our
aimed specically to discomt those whose intuitions about specic cases cannot be trusted
prosperity is founded on grinding the faces here. Indeed, one of psychologys contributions
of the poor, on neglecting the stranger, and to the theory of human nature, starting with
on driving away the outcast. I have in mind Freud and continuing through contemporary
too the teaching and example of Jesus Christ social psychology, is that we are often wrong
in associating with those who were marginal about the reasons for our own actionsand
and despised, and in making ones willingness we tend to err in the direction of assuming
to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take in that we do things because of rational justica-
the stranger, and visit those who are in prison tions (see Haidt 2001). To return to an exam-
a condition of ones recognition of Him. And ple given previously, people might believe that
its not just scripture: it is the whole edice they prefer a welfare plan based on its objec-
of (say) Catholic natural law reasoning about tive merits and be unaware of how much they
need, and church doctrine on the perils of are inuenced by their knowledge that it is pro-
complacent and exclusive community. posed by the political party that they belong to
(Cohen 2003). Similarly, people might sin-
Waldron concedes that religious conviction cerely believe that their disapproval toward ho-
is no guarantee of a universalist mentality and mosexuals is rooted in the teachings of Biblical
can fuel hatred and division. But he suggests texts. But they might just be mistakenthey
that, for most people, religion is the only route might have some animus toward homosexuals
available for the sort of broad-spectrum moral- for other reasons and then justify this animus
ity that many would aspire to, one that re- by reference to religious faith.
jects traditional and seemingly natural social More generally, Wright (2009) argues that
and economic boundaries. The notion that re- although people frequently try to explain their
ligion can ground a cosmopolitan worldview is actions through appeals to the Bible or the
defended by Appiah (2006) as well, who notes Koran or other religious texts, the actual causal
that Christianity in particular has had a uni- force is more situational. If individuals are in a
versalist ethos. He quotes Saint Paul: There zero-sum relationship, they nd scriptural mo-
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond tivation for hatred and war; when their fates
nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are intertwined in a positive way, they nd
all one in Christ Jesus. One might sympathize tolerance and love. For Wright, it is not that

people get their moral views from religious texts moral actions such as suicide bombings, racial
and authorities; rather, their moral views are prejudice, honest behavior, and generosity to
determined by the the facts on the ground; strangers are related to religionbut not to re-
people shop around for justications after the ligious belief. Although it is often claimed that
fact. the moral ideas encoded in the worlds religions
This is consistent with the data reviewed have an important effect on our moral lives,
in this article. In the lab and in the world, there is little evidence for this popular view.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is unaware of any afliation, funding, or nancial holdings that might be perceived as
affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Konika Banerjee, Susan Fiske, Jonathan Haidt, Ara Norenzayan, Mark Sheskin, and
Christina Starmans for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
LITERATURE CITED
Alcorta C, Sosis R. 2005. Ritual, emotion, and sacred symbols: the evolution of religion as an adaptive complex.
Hum. Nat. 16:32359
Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Allport GW, Kramer BM. 1946. Some roots of prejudice. J. Psychol. 22:939
Allport GW, Ross JM. 1967. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 5:43243
Altemeyer B, Hunsberger B. 1992. Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. Int. J.
Psychol. Religion 2:11333
Appiah K 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton
Atran S. 2004. In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Atran S, Norenzayan A. 2004. Religions evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, commitment, compassion,
communion. Behav. Brain Sci. 27:71330
Baron-Cohen S. 2003. The Essential Difference: The Truth About the Male and Female Brain. New York: Basic
Books
Barrett JL. 2004. Why Would Anyone Believe in God? Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Bateson M, Nettle D, Roberts G. 2006. Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting.
Biol. Lett. 3:41214
Batson CD. 1976. Religion as prosocial: agent or double agent? J. Sci. Study Religion 15:2945
Batson CD, Oleson KC, Weeks JL, Healy SP, Reeves PJ, et al. 1989. Religious prosocial motivation: Is it
altruistic or egoistic? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:87384
Batson CD, Stocks EL. 2005. Religion and prejudice. In On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport,
ed. JF Dovidio, PS Glick, L Rudman, pp. 41327. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Batson CD, Schoenrade P, Ventis WL. 1993. Religion and the Individual: A Social-Psychological Perspective. New
York: Oxford Univ. Press
Bering JM. 2002. The existential theory of mind. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 6:324
Bering JM. 2006. The folk psychology of souls. Behav. Brain Sci. 29:45398
Bering JM. 2011. The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life. New York: Norton
Bering JM, McLeod K, Shackelford TK. 2005. Reasoning about dead agents reveals possible adaptive trends.
Hum. Nat. 16:36081
Bloom P. 2007. Religion is natural. Dev. Sci. 10:14751
Bloom P. 2004. Descartes Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human. New
York: Basic Books
196 Bloom
Bloom P. 2009. Religion belief as an evolutionary accident. In The Believing Primate, ed. MJ Murray, J Schloss,
pp. 11827. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Bloom P. 2010. How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like. New York: Norton
Bloom P, Weisberg DS. 2007. Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science 316:99697
Boyd R, Richerson PJ. 2002. Group benecial norms spread rapidly in a structured population. J. Theor. Biol.
215:28796
Boyer P. 2001. Religion Explained. New York: Basic Books
Brooks AC. 2006. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. New York: Basic
Books
Bulbulia J. 2004. The cognitive and evolutionary psychology of religion. Biol. Philos. 19:65586
Chartrand TL, Bargh JA. 1999. The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 76:893910
Cohen AB, Rozin P. 2001. Religion and the morality of mentality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:697710
Cohen GL. 2003. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group inuence on political beliefs. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 85:80822
Cosmides L. 1989. The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies
with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31:187276
Darley J, Batson CD. 1973. From Jerusalem to Jericho: a study of situational and dispositional variables in
helping behaviour. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 27:1008
Dawkins R. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam
de Waal F. 1996. Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univ. Press
de Waal F. 2010. Morals without God? N.Y. Times, Oct. 17
Durkheim E. 1912/1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press
Dyson F. 2006. Religion from the outside. N.Y. Rev. Books, June 22
Edgell P, Gerteis J, Hartmann D. 2006. Atheists as other: moral boundaries and cultural membership in
American society. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:21134
Ernest-Jones M, Nettle D, Bateson M. 2011. Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: a eld
experiment. Evol. Hum. Behav. 32:17278
Evans EM. 2000. Beyond Scopes: why creationism is here to stay. In Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientic
and Religious Thinking in Children, ed. K Rosengren, C Johnson, P Harris, pp. 30531. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Evans EM. 2001. Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: creation versus
evolution. Cogn. Psychol. 42:21766
Festinger L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson
Finkel D, Swartwout P, Sosis R. 2010. The socio-religious brain: a developmental model. In Proceedings of the
British Academy, ed. R Dunbar, C Gamble, J Gowlett, 158:287312
Ginges J, Hansen I, Norenzayan A. 2009. Religion and support for suicide attacks. Psychol. Sci. 20:22430
Gould SJ, Lewontin RC. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the
adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 205(1161):58198
Graham J, Haidt J. 2010. Beyond beliefs: religion binds individuals into moral communities. Personal. Soc.
Psychol. Rev. 14:14050
Greenwald A. 1975. Does the Good Samaritan parable increase helping? A comment on Darley and Batsons
no-effect conclusion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 32:57883
Guthrie S. 1993. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Haidt J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol.
Rev. 108:81434
Haidt J. 2007. Moral psychology and the misunderstanding of religion. http://www.edge.org/3rd_
culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html
Haidt J. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon
Haidt J, Kesebir S. 2010. Morality. In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. S Fiske, D Gilbert, pp. 797832. New
York: McGraw Hill. 5th ed.

Haley KJ, Fessler DMT. 2005. Nobodys watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic
game. Evol. Hum. Behav. 26:24556
Hall DL, Matz DC, Wood W. 2010. Why dont we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of
religious racism. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14:12639
Hamlin JK, Wynn K, Bloom P. 2007. Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450:55759
Harris S. 2004. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York: Norton
Hitchens C. 2007. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve Books
Hoffman M. 2000. Empathy and Moral Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hume D. 1956 [1757]. The Natural History of Religion. London: Black
Irons W. 2004. An evolutionary critique of the created co-creator concept. Zygon: J. Religion Sci. 39:77390
James W. 1960 [1902]. The Varieties of Religious Experience. London: Fontana
Jensen GF. 2006. Religious cosmologies and homicide rates among nations: a closer look. J. Religion Soc.
8:114
Johnson DDP. 2005. Gods punishment and public goods: a test of the supernatural punishment hypothesis
in 186 world cultures. Hum. Nat. 16:41046
Johnson DDP, Bering JM. 2006. Hand of God, mind of man: punishment and cognition in the evolution of
cooperation. Evol. Psychol. 4:21933
Johnson MK, Rowatt WC, LaBouff JP. 2010. Priming Christian religious concepts increases racial prejudice.
Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 1:11926
Jost JT, Nosek BA, Gosling SD. 2008. Ideology: its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology.
Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3:12636
Kelemen D. 2004. Are children intuitive theists? Psychol. Sci. 15:295301
Keltner D. 2009. Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life. New York: Norton
Lane JD, Wellman HM, Evans ME. 2010. Childrens understanding of ordinary and extraordinary minds.
Child Dev. 81:147589
Larson EJ, Witham L. 1997. Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature 389:43536
Larson EJ, Witham L. 1998. Leading scientists still reject God. Nature 394:313
Liddle JR, Machluf K, Shackelford TK. 2010. Understanding suicide terrorism: premature dismissal of the
religious-belief hypothesis. Evol. Psychol. 10:34345
Lindholm JA, Astin HS, Astin AW. 2006. Spirituality and the Professoriate. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Higher
Educ. Res. Inst.
Locke J. 1983/1689. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D. 2008. The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance.
J. Mark. Res. 45:63344
McCauley RN, Whitehouse H. 2005. Introduction: new frontiers in the cognitive science of religion. J. Cogn.
Cult. 5:113
Myers DG. 2008. A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists: Musings on Why God Is Good and Faith Isnt Evil. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley
Myers PZ. 2007. Commentary on Moral psychology and the misunderstanding of religion, by Jonathan
Haidt. http://www.edge.org/discourse/moral_religion.html#myers
Napier JL, Jost JT. 2008. The antidemocratic personality revisited: a cross-national investigation of working-
class authoritarianism. J. Soc. Issues 64:595617
Norenzayan A, Gervais W. 2012. The cultural evolution of religion. In Creating Consilience: Integrating Science
and the Humanities, ed. E Slingerland, M Collard. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
Norenzayan A, Shariff AF. 2008. The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science 322(5898):5862
Paul GS. 2005. Cross-national correlations of quantiable societal health with popular religiosity and secu-
larism in the prosperous democracies. J. Religion Soc. 7:117
Paul GS. 2010. Religiosity tied to socioeconomic status. Science 327(5966):642
Persinger MA. 2001. The neuropsychiatry of paranormal experiences. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 13:515
24
Piazza J, Bering JM, Ingram G. 2011. Princess Alice is watching you: childrens belief in an invisible person
inhibits cheating. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 109:31120
198 Bloom
Pichon I, Boccato G, Saroglou V. 2007. Nonconscious inuences of religion on prosociality: a priming study.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37:103245
Pinker S. 1997. How the Mind Works. New York: Norton
Putnam R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster
Putnam R, Campbell D. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon &
Schuster
Pyysiainen I. 2003. How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion. Leiden: Brill
Randolph-Seng B, Nielsen ME. 2007. Honesty: one effect of primed religious representations. Int. J. Psychol.
Religion 17:30315
Sedikides C, Gebauer JE. 2010. Religiosity as self-enhancement: a meta-analysis of the relation between
socially desirable responding and religiosity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14:1736
Shariff AF, Norenzayan A. 2007. God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in
an anonymous economic game. Psychol. Sci. 18:8039
Shermer M. 2003. How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science. New York: Freeman
Shweder RA, Much NC, Mahapatra M, Park L. 1997. The big three of morality (autonomy, community,
divinity), and the big three explanations of suffering. In Morality and Health, ed. P Rozin, A Brandt,
pp. 11969. New York: Routledge
Sober E, Wilson DS. 2011. Adaptation and natural selection revisited. J. Evol. Biol. 24:46268
Sosis R, Bressler ER. 2003. Cooperation and commune longevity: a test of the costly signaling theory of
religion. Cross-Cult. Res. 37:21139
Tylor EB. 1871. Primitive Culture, Volume 2. London: John Murray
Waldman S. 2004. Pilgrims progress. June 29. http://www.slate.com/id/2103017/
Waldron J. 2010. Secularism and the limits of community. NYU School Law, Public Law Res. Pap. No. 10-88.
http://ssrn.com/abstract = 1722780
Warneken F, Tomasello M. 2006. Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science
311:13013
Weinberg S. 1999. A designer universe? (Did the universe have a cosmic designer?). N.Y. Rev. Books 46:4648
Wieseltier L. 2006. The God genome. N.Y. Times, Feb. 19, Sec. 7, p. 11
Williams GC. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Wilson DS. 2002. Darwins Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Wilson DS. 2007. Evolution for Everyone: How Darwins Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives.
New York: Delacorte
Wiltermuth SS, Heath C. 2009. Synchrony and cooperation. Psychol. Sci. 20:15
Wright R. 2009. Evolution of God. New York: Little Brown
Zuckerman P. 2008. Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. New
York: NYU Press

PS63-FrontMatter ARI 10 November 2011 9:52
Annual Review of
Psychology
Volume 63, 2012 Contents
Prefatory
Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies
Alan Baddeley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Developmental Psychobiology
Learning to See Words
Brian A. Wandell, Andreas M. Rauschecker, and Jason D. Yeatman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p31
Memory
Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing
and Reshaping of Memories
William Hirst and Gerald Echterhoff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
Judgment and Decision Making
Experimental Philosophy
Joshua Knobe, Wesley Buckwalter, Shaun Nichols, Philip Robbins,
Hagop Sarkissian, and Tamler Sommers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p81
Brain Imaging/Cognitive Neuroscience
Distributed Representations in Memory: Insights from Functional
Brain Imaging
Jesse Rissman and Anthony D. Wagner p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Neuroscience of Learning
Fear Extinction as a Model for Translational Neuroscience:
Ten Years of Progress
Mohammed R. Milad and Gregory J. Quirk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 129
Comparative Psychology
The Evolutionary Origins of Friendship
Robert M. Seyfarth and Dorothy L. Cheney p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 153
Emotional, Social, and Personality Development
Religion, Morality, Evolution
Paul Bloom p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 179
vi
Adulthood and Aging

Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines
Timothy Salthouse p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 201
Development in Societal Context
Child Development in the Context of Disaster, War, and Terrorism:
Pathways of Risk and Resilience
Ann S. Masten and Angela J. Narayan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227
Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation, Social Emotion
Social Functionality of Human Emotion
Paula M. Niedenthal and Markus Brauer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 259

Social Neuroscience
Mechanisms of Social Cognition
Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287
Personality Processes
Personality Processes: Mechanisms by Which Personality Traits
Get Outside the Skin
Sarah E. Hampson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 315
Work Attitudes
Job Attitudes
Timothy A. Judge and John D. Kammeyer-Mueller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 341
The Individual Experience of Unemployment
Connie R. Wanberg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 369
Job/Work Analysis
The Rise and Fall of Job Analysis and the Future of Work Analysis
Juan I. Sanchez and Edward L. Levine p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 397
Education of Special Populations
Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and Reading Fluency:
Implications for Understanding and Treatment of Reading Disabilities
Elizabeth S. Norton and Maryanne Wolf p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Human Abilities
Intelligence
Ian J. Deary p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 453
Research Methodology
Decoding Patterns of Human Brain Activity
Frank Tong and Michael S. Pratte p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 483
Contents vii
Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive Neuroscience

Roy Mukamel and Itzhak Fried p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 511
Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research
and Recommendations on How to Control It
Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 539
Neuroscience Methods
Neuroethics: The Ethical, Legal, and Societal Impact of Neuroscience
Martha J. Farah p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 571
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 5363 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 5363 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 598
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

http://psych.AnnualReviews.org/errata.shtml
viii Contents

Paul Bloom - Religion, Morality, Evolution (Annual Review of Psychology, 2012) PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Paul Bloom - Religion, Morality, Evolution (Annual Review of Psychology, 2012) PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PS63CH08-Bloom ARI 31 October 2011 11:26

Top cited articles email: paul.bloom@yale.edu

Our comprehensive search

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012. 63:17999 Keywords

not talked about. Many would go further

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 181

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 183

A second sense has to do with supernatu- RELIGION AND MORALITY:

most connects with claims about the evolution

just war, and so on. People believe these claims

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 185

peal to group selection is controversial, to say MORALITY WITHOUT

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 187

seminary students or about the parable of the

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 189

from the analysis, the effect of the presence

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 191

to the communities that exclude them. to devotion to particular religious belief

cally religious aspects of religionsupernatural that matters, as reected by participation in

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 193

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 195

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 197

www.annualreviews.org Religion, Morality, Evolution 199

Volume 63, 2012 Contents

Adulthood and Aging

Paula M. Niedenthal and Markus Brauer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 259

Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive Neuroscience

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 5363 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

S-ar putea să vă placă și