Religious upbringing associated with less altruism, study finds

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

Reading the study an relating it to parenting, it has always been a challenge to teach children to share.  My take away is that children from religious homes have more self confidence to express their wants at a young age.  As their brains form and they gain empathy through experience, they become more generous.  It seems logical to me the altruism learning curve would take a steep climb for the religious child during adulthood.  Generalizing from my non scientific observation in news articles (Al Gore's charitable contributions, etc.) Non religious adults tend to be altruistic with other people's money. 

Al Gore is religious, so he's probably not the best example for your stereotyping.  In fact, like you and Storm Rider, he's on the record for portraying non-believers in a negative light. 

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, cacheman said:

Since I know you like to avoid misleading deductions.... I'm not sure that  you can find support from the study for the bolded portion of your post?  In the very short literature review section of their summary they cite a previous study that showed altruistic behavior in general increasing as the child ages.  Where is the measurement between groups?  I haven't read the full linked paper, just the abstract.  So, I might be missing some critical info.

Speaking of social agendas.... what is your rationale for mocking the children of athiests in this post?  I don't think that was necessary, even if you disagree with the findings.  For a more positive and cautious approach, you might want to read Calm's very reasonable analysis of the paper earlier in this thread. 

Oh, Cacheman, I was actually quoting the study that the article referred to.  To quote their Summary:  

        "Prosocial behaviors are ubiquitous across societies. They emerge early in ontogeny [1] and are shaped by interactions between genes and culture [2, 3]. Over the course of middle childhood, sharing approaches equality in distribution [4]."

It was not my deduction - I probably should have actually quoted it rather than refer to it in my post.  

My intention was not to mock the children - my intention was to mock the social agenda of those doing the analysis and presenting the results of a narrow test with limited test group.  First, I don't think it was fair to use such a large subgroup of Muslim children in Turkey and Jordan.  Those children tested in such a way as to meet the objectives of the desired agenda - religious parents raise less altruistic children that are also more punitive than the enlightened Atheist parents.  Why not test just Muslim children from a range of Muslim nations?  I would expect to find some cultural reasons for the results rather than religious reasons within these nations that are also Muslim.  

I think I read Calm's comments, which are always good.  I think my was more pointed and more informational.  Basically, this study used a narrow test group of primary age children to prove their desired result.  It is akin to writing a thesis and excluding all conflicting information in order to support the desired hypothesis.  Fundamentally, it is dishonest and lacking academic integrity.  Why do you think a group would want to show that religious parents raise children who are less altruistic and more punitive than parents who are atheists?  What do you think their objective was?  

[Nofear]

Graphs and more on this study: http://wmbriggs.com/post/17238/

The data is, of course, incontrovertible.

Or one can ask a few relevant questions like this blogger does:

Quote

1) Does the research adequately deal with and explain previous literature? No. 

2) Is the article in an appropriate, peer reviewed journal, where scholars are likely to have been able to catch the major flaws? No. 

3) Do the authors use a representative sample of the groups they are studying? No. 

4) Do the authors do sufficient work to demonstrate that the relationship between religion and giving behavior is causal? No. 

5) Is the statistical analysis rigorous and appropriate? Is it plausible that difference in religious upbringing is the only thing that makes stickers more valuable to some of the children than other children? No. 

6) Is religion carefully measured and are religious groups carefully distinguished? No. 

How likely would the "research" have been similarly cited by some groups if the "results" were the reverse? I would venture to say very likely, at least by several groups (and good chance of being posted on this forum to boot). But, reverse conclusions would have been just as spurious.

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Oh, Cacheman, I was actually quoting the study that the article referred to.  To quote their Summary:  

        "Prosocial behaviors are ubiquitous across societies. They emerge early in ontogeny [1] and are shaped by interactions between genes and culture [2, 3]. Over the course of middle childhood, sharing approaches equality in distribution [4]."

It was not my deduction - I probably should have actually quoted it rather than refer to it in my post. 

Hi Storm Rider,

What you said differs from what they wrote in the article.  You said: "by the time all the children achieve middle school there was no measurable difference between the groups".  However, the authors of this article did not study middle school children.  Their statement was based on the study they cited (E. Fehr, H. Bernhard, B. Rockenbach, Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454 (2008), pp. 1079-1083), which did not control for religious belief.  Maybe you could clarify which 'groups' you're talking about.

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

My intention was not to mock the children - my intention was to mock the social agenda of those doing the analysis and presenting the results of a narrow test with limited test group.  First, I don't think it was fair to use such a large subgroup of Muslim children in Turkey and Jordan.  Those children tested in such a way as to meet the objectives of the desired agenda - religious parents raise less altruistic children that are also more punitive than the enlightened Atheist parents.  Why not test just Muslim children from a range of Muslim nations?  I would expect to find some cultural reasons for the results rather than religious reasons within these nations that are also Muslim.  

 

I think I read Calm's comments, which are always good.  I think my was more pointed and more informational.  Basically, this study used a narrow test group of primary age children to prove their desired result.  It is akin to writing a thesis and excluding all conflicting information in order to support the desired hypothesis.  Fundamentally, it is dishonest and lacking academic integrity.  Why do you think a group would want to show that religious parents raise children who are less altruistic and more punitive than parents who are atheists?  What do you think their objective was?  

Got it.  I'm in agreement with you that a broader and larger sample would be ideal.  However, that can be difficult to achieve, particularly with the type of study they are doing.  The study appears to adhere to rigorous statistical standards, but I agree with Calm's assessment that the test they used is limited in scope and that the authors likely placed too much meaning on the results.  Other than the natural limitations of a study like this, and what I see as over-reaching conclusions, the study appears to be sound.

I have no way of knowing the motivations of the authors other than what they wrote.  Unless you know more about these authors than I do, then I think it's irresponsible to accuse them of being dishonest and lacking academic integrity.  Perhaps they have a social agenda to portray non-religious kids as more altruistic.... I have no idea.  The John Templeton Foundation which funded the study is certainly not known to be antagonistic towards religion.  The authors' publication record doesn't indicate any sort of social agenda targeting religious belief.  I'm not sure where you are getting that idea other than the fact that this particular study had finding that weren't favorable towards your 'group'.

[Storm Rider]

55 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Hi Storm Rider,

What you said differs from what they wrote in the article.  You said: "by the time all the children achieve middle school there was no measurable difference between the groups".  However, the authors of this article did not study middle school children.  Their statement was based on the study they cited (E. Fehr, H. Bernhard, B. Rockenbach, Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454 (2008), pp. 1079-1083), which did not control for religious belief.  Maybe you could clarify which 'groups' you're talking about.

Got it.  I'm in agreement with you that a broader and larger sample would be ideal.  However, that can be difficult to achieve, particularly with the type of study they are doing.  The study appears to adhere to rigorous statistical standards, but I agree with Calm's assessment that the test they used is limited in scope and that the authors likely placed too much meaning on the results.  Other than the natural limitations of a study like this, and what I see as over-reaching conclusions, the study appears to be sound.

I have no way of knowing the motivations of the authors other than what they wrote.  Unless you know more about these authors than I do, then I think it's irresponsible to accuse them of being dishonest and lacking academic integrity.  Perhaps they have a social agenda to portray non-religious kids as more altruistic.... I have no idea.  The John Templeton Foundation which funded the study is certainly not known to be antagonistic towards religion.  The authors' publication record doesn't indicate any sort of social agenda targeting religious belief.  I'm not sure where you are getting that idea other than the fact that this particular study had finding that weren't favorable towards your 'group'.

The article stated, "Over the course of middle childhood, sharing approaches equality in distribution [4]."  How do you interpret this statement?  I have already stated how I interpreted, but you seem to have another conclusion.

[cacheman]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The article stated, "Over the course of middle childhood, sharing approaches equality in distribution [4]."  How do you interpret this statement?  I have already stated how I interpreted, but you seem to have another conclusion.

I interpret it the way the study their paper cited interpreted it.  The study they cited to justify that sentence didn't consider religiosity in their study,  so no conclusions were made in that regard. 

[cacheman]

For those interested,  another team replicated the study and argued for a flaw in the coding of the statistics.  The statistical modification they made lessened the role of religion while increasing the  influence of country.  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216306704 

 

[Raymond Ellis]

I wasn't brought up in a religious family, and so I was free to seek the true nature of God without a religion telling me what to believe.

[Gray]

On 1/15/2018 at 4:57 PM, cacheman said:

For those interested,  another team replicated the study and argued for a flaw in the coding of the statistics.  The statistical modification they made lessened the role of religion while increasing the  influence of country.  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216306704 

 

This is very helpful, thank you!

[Calm]

On 2018-01-15 at 3:57 PM, cacheman said:

For those interested,  another team replicated the study and argued for a flaw in the coding of the statistics.  The statistical modification they made lessened the role of religion while increasing the  influence of country.  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216306704 

 

Good find.