Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33398149›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2021

Religion, parochialism and intuitive cooperation.

Ozan Isler, Onurcan Yilmaz, A John Maule

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The microdynamics shaping the relationship between democracy and corruption.Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ozan IslerSchool of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ozan.isler@qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4638-2230
Onurcan YilmazDepartment of Psychology, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6094-7162
A John MauleLeeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3083-5458

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Religions promote cooperation, but they can also be divisive. Is religious cooperation intuitively parochial against atheists? Evidence supporting the social heuristics hypothesis (SHH) suggests that cooperation is intuitive, independent of religious group identity. We tested this prediction in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma game, where 1,280 practising Christian believers were paired with either a coreligionist or an atheist and where time limits were used to increase reliance on either intuitive or deliberated decisions. We explored another dual-process account of cooperation, the self-control account (SCA), which suggests that visceral reactions tend to be selfish and that cooperation requires deliberation. We found evidence for religious parochialism but no support for SHH's prediction of intuitive cooperation. Consistent with SCA but requiring confirmation in future studies, exploratory analyses showed that religious parochialism involves decision conflict and concern for strong reciprocity and that deliberation promotes cooperation independent of religious group identity. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 28 January 2020. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12086781.v1 .

Indexed as

HeuristicsInterpersonal RelationsIntuitionPrisoner DilemmaReligion and PsychologyCooperative BehaviorDecision MakingGame TheoryHumansMotivation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.