Abstract
This research investigates the influence of religious priming and group membership on prosocial behavior, measured by the willingness to donate to fictitious charities in a hypothetical scenario. A sample of 258 Hindu participants, averaging 21.3 years of age, were engaged in an online study designed on PsyToolkit. The study employed a 3*2 factorial design, wherein participants were subliminally primed with concepts of “reward” and “punishment” within religious contexts through a lexical decision task. Post-priming, individuals were presented with a decision to allocate a portion of a potential lucky draw prize to selected charities, which represented either their religious ingroup or an outgroup. The findings demonstrated that religious priming did not significantly enhance prosocial behavior toward either group. Bayesian analysis supported the absence of an effect for priming and group conditions. Moreover, other variables such as religiosity, sex, and political orientation showed no substantial effect on the likelihood of charitable giving. However, consistent with previous research, past charity behavior emerged as the most salient predictor of prosocial behavior, underscoring the importance of experiential factors in shaping altruistic tendencies. The study reflects on the influence of India’s secular and culturally rich backdrop, which may modulate the propensity to engage in charitable acts, especially when the donations come from unexpected gains rather than one’s own money. It reveals that prosocial behavior is shaped by a mix of situational and personal factors, not just religious beliefs. The research contributes to the understanding of prosocial behavior in diverse religious contexts and the role of personal experience in predicting charitable actions, advocating for further investigation into these dynamics.
Introduction
Religiosity, as defined by Hardy and Carlo (2005b), encompasses an individual’s commitment to, identification with, and involvement in a religion or system of religious beliefs. This commitment is reflected in the strength of one’s religious feelings, frequency of attendance at religious services, and engagement in religious practices. Etter (2019) operationalized religiosity by integrating various variables related to religious service attendance, frequency of prayer, self-reported strength of religious practices, private rituals, and experiences. Religiosity is characterized by a set of behaviors and customs that embody accepted assumptions and standards, serving to confer value to human existence. It signifies an individual’s recognition and adherence to the norms and principles of a particular religion (Park & Smith, 2000). Notably, religiosity has been found to exhibit a positive association with prosocial behavior (Hardy & Carlo, 2005b).
Religious priming has emerged as a valuable tool in the psychological study of religion, enabling the examination of religion’s causal influence on various psychological outcomes, including prosocial behavior. Bargh (2006) broadly defines religious priming as the activation of mental concepts through explicit and subtle cues related to religion, which can be used to assess the impact of religious cognition on judgment and subsequent behavior. Various priming methods have been employed to advance this area of research. Explicit religious priming involves directly prompting participants to contemplate specific religious ideas, such as reading passages from sacred texts, writing essays about religious passages, or memorizing biblical verses (DeBono et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2015; Mazar et al., 2008). Implicit religious priming, on the other hand, entails the subtle presentation of primes that participants may perceive without being aware of their potential influence on behavior (Chan et al., 2014, Studies 2 and 3; Benjamin et al., 2016). Contextual religious priming utilizes cues such as auditory stimuli and religious settings (A. Ahmed & Salas, 2013; Xygalatas, 2013), while subliminal religious priming is designed to test the impact of exposure to stimuli presented below the threshold of conscious perception (Kouider et al., 2007; McKay et al., 2011).
Prosocial behavior, as defined by Michalik et al. (2007), encompasses actions intended to benefit individuals or groups. These actions may include discretionary behaviors such as assisting, comforting, sharing, and cooperating, all aimed at aiding deserving recipients (Sproull, 2011). In the context of religious priming and prosocial literature, prosocial behavior has been operationalized in various ways (Pichon et al., 2007; Preston et al., 2010). For instance, studies have measured prosocial behavior by assessing donation behavior for charitable causes, tipping behavior, participation in economic games (e.g. dictator game), real and self-reported charitable spending, and helping behavior (Pichon et al., 2007). Cooperation has also been measured through economic games (e.g. public good game), contributions to public funds in real-life settings, and self-reports (A. Ahmed & Salas, 2013; Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007). Notably, donation behavior has been widely utilized as a robust measure of prosocial behavior in numerous studies (Greenway et al., 2018; Morton et al., 2020; Van Tongeren et al., 2020; Ward & King, 2018).
Religious priming and prosocial behavior
The activation of various aspects of religion through religious priming has been associated with an increase in prosocial behavior, encompassing acts of generosity and charity (Pichon et al., 2007; Preston et al., 2010; Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007), cooperation (A. Ahmed & Salas, 2013; Batara, 2016), and nonretaliation (Saroglou et al., 2009). Sosis and Ruffle (2004) conducted an examination of generosity levels in an experimental cooperative pool game within religious and secular communities in Israel, revealing higher levels of cooperation in religious communities, with the highest levels observed among religious men engaged in daily communal prayer. However, a body of behavioral research has presented conflicting evidence, demonstrating no consistent increase in prosocial behavior (Galen et al., 2022; Kirchmaier et al., 2018; Manesi et al., 2019). These inconsistencies may be attributed to individual differences in religious beliefs, initial levels of prosocial tendencies, and the economic status of the benefactor. In addition, situational moderators have been identified as potential influencers of prosocial inclinations. For instance, Sabato and Kogut (2018) found that in children aged 7–11, religiousness was linked to heightened generosity only when presented with a needy recipient, as opposed to a non-needy one.
The history of religious priming, involving the subtle activation of religious concepts to influence behavior, presents a complex and often contradictory narrative in psychological research. While some studies support the positive impact of religious priming on prosocial behavior, others question its reliability and generalizability (Doyen et al., 2012, 2014; Gervais & Norenzayan, 2012; Ritter & Preston, 2013). The effectiveness of religious priming appears to be influenced by individual differences, cultural contexts, and methodological considerations (Minton, 2020). Moreover, the scrutiny is due to issues such as small sample sizes, non-significant replication of seminal studies (Gomes & McCullough, 2015), and publication bias being identified as potential challenges (Van Elk et al., 2015). The debate surrounding the validity of priming research, including religious priming, underscores the importance of rigorous investigation to elucidate the complexities of how religious concepts shape human behavior (Ritter & Preston, 2013). In the present study, subliminal priming was preferred over other priming methods (Watanabe & Laurent, 2020) due to concerns that conscious awareness of the primes may introduce biases, ensuring that the effects observed were not influenced by participants’ explicit processing of the stimuli (Dijksterhuis et al., 2008; Xiao & Yamauchi, 2017).
Religious “reward” and religious “punishment” primes on prosocial behavior
The multidimensional nature of prosocial behaviors emphasizes the importance of considering various motivations and contexts that drive individuals to engage in prosocial acts (Coyne et al., 2018; Shariff et al., 2016). Studies have shown that reminders of religion, including both divine rewards and punishments, can positively influence individuals’ prosociality (Carlo et al., 2010; Lang et al., 2019; Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008; Saleam & Moustafa, 2016). The religious primes employed in the priming literature usually consist of primes with either a positive or negative valence, that is (Hell—Heaven, Sin—Virtue, Curse—Liberation, etc.), which have not particularly been examined and compared to each other. Some evidence suggests that the punishing aspects of religion drive morality more than reward ones (DeBono et al., 2017; Purzycki et al., 2016; Shariff & Norenzayan, 2011), which becomes another essential point of comparison in this study.
The Trimurti (trinity of supreme divinity) are the most prominent deities in contemporary Hinduism. They consist of Brahma, the Creator; Vishnu, the Preserver; and Shiva, the Destroyer. As the preserver in the Trimurti, Vishnu symbolizes sustenance and benevolence, rewarding individuals for their virtuous actions. The belief is that accumulating “good karma” through selfless deeds is a guiding principle for individuals seeking material, emotional, or transcendental benefits (Casidy et al., 2021; Pichon et al., 2007). Moreover, the notion of Nishkama karma in Hinduism, which underscores the importance of engaging in actions for the sake of the action itself, without expecting anything in return, is also a high virtue (White & Norenzayan, 2022). Individuals are internally motivated by the prospect of divine approval and the intrinsic satisfaction of doing good (Sasaki & Kim, 2011). Positive religious primes may activate prosocial concepts by appealing to positive emotions, such as hope and gratitude (Saroglou, 2006; Van Cappellen et al., 2021), and enhance forgiveness and honesty, motivating individuals to engage in altruistic acts driven by the anticipation of spiritual fulfillment and blessings (A. Ahmed & Hammarstedt, 2011).
On the other hand, religious punishment, associated with deities like Shiva in Hindu mythology, is characterized by survival instincts and fear of retribution. Shiva, as the destroyer in the Trimurti, represents transformation and renewal through destruction. The concept of punishment in religious primes serves as a deterrent against unethical behavior, motivating individuals to adhere to religious norms out of fear of facing negative consequences or divine wrath and encouraging normative behavioral strategies (Lang et al., 2016; Miyatake & Higuchi, 2017; Placek & Lightner, 2023). They may activate cognitive mechanisms related to threat detection and avoidance (Carr & Landau, 2012; D. Johnson & Bering, 2006). Negative religious primes have been linked to increased psychological reactance and greater prejudice, highlighting the impact of fear-based religious cues on behavior (Minton, 2018; Snell et al., 2024). Negative emotions, such as fear and guilt, are linked to religious punishment and may also drive individuals to engage in prosocial behavior to alleviate such feelings (Zarzycka et al., 2023). With a predominantly Muslim sample, Yilmaz and Bahçekapili (2016) found that participants primed with punishment-related religious and secular words (e.g. “devil” and “prison,” respectively) reported more prosocial intentions than participants primed with non-punishing religious and secular words (e.g. “spirit” and “democracy,” respectively). Hence, the present study sought to understand this nuanced binary differentiation in the nature of religious primes employed and the interplay between situational and individual determinants of prosocial behavior. Furthermore, beyond the influence of religious priming, the impact of group membership on prosocial behavior has also garnered attention in recent research (Tsang et al., 2020).
Group membership and prosocial behavior
Group membership plays a pivotal role in determining the recipients of prosocial behavior and addresses the fundamental question of “whom do we help?” It encompasses the impact of the helper’s awareness of the recipient’s identity, particularly in terms of ingroup versus outgroup categorization, on their prosocial conduct. Parochial prosociality, characterized by selective application of values (e.g. trust) or behaviors (e.g. charitable donations) to individuals within a delimited social sphere, such as kin, co-religionists, or members of a specific cultural ingroup, has been documented in the literature (Saroglou et al., 2005). Purzycki and Kulundary (2018) observed support for the selective prosociality hypothesis over the expanded prosociality hypothesis in a sample of Buddhists, with additional social attributes such as socioeconomic status and education predicting ingroup favoritism. Overall, a preference for greater prosocial behavior toward ingroup members has been evidenced (Galen, 2012; Morton et al., 2020), although some studies have reported an increase in prosocial behavior toward outgroup members (Pasek et al., 2020). Furthermore, religious primes have been associated with less socially desirable outcomes, including instances of conformity and submission leading to retaliatory behaviors among dispositionally submissive individuals (Saroglou et al., 2009; Van Cappellen et al., 2011), as well as prejudice toward outgroups (Rowatt et al., 2013).
The present study
With a population of approximately 1.42 billion people, India is the most populous country globally (United Nations, 2022), boasting a culturally diverse and religiously pluralistic heritage. It is home to the majority of the world’s Hindus, as well as one of the largest Muslim and Christian populations, despite being a religious minority in comparison with Hindus (Pew Research Center, 2021). Religion holds significant sensitivity in the Indian context, often serving as a tool for mobilizing political resources (Mubarak, 2009). Given this backdrop, it becomes imperative to investigate whether the predominant religious group exhibits differential prosocial behavior toward religious minorities. Furthermore, the exploration of the relationship between religiosity and prosocial behavior within the Indian context, particularly within a Hindu sample, remains relatively scarce, with only a few studies addressing this gap (e.g. A. M. Ahmed, 2009; Balasubramanian et al., 2021). There is also a pressing need to extend this investigation to diverse religious contexts beyond the Western, industrialized, and affluent populations that have dominated the sample in much of the published experimental religion research (Henrich et al., 2010). In addition, the technique of religious priming, while relatively novel, warrants further exploration to assess the robustness of its effects across varied methods, contexts, religions, and cultures (Shariff et al., 2016). Existing literature predominantly focuses on priming “reward” or “punishment” concepts within religion, which imply personal or distant rewards or punishments, respectively, in connotation or content (DeBono et al., 2017; Harrell, 2012; McKay et al., 2011; Saleam & Moustafa, 2016). This study seeks to investigate the simultaneous effects of “reward” and “punishment” primes on prosocial behavior, particularly within the Hindu population, as no prior research has compared the impact of these primes together. Furthermore, the examination of an individual’s inclination toward “parochialism,” characterized by ingroup favoritism, has yielded mixed evidence (Tsang et al., 2020). Therefore, the present study aims to measure prosocial tendencies toward both ingroup members (Hindus) and outgroup members (Muslims and Christians). In addition, the study explores the effect of individual variables such as sex (Etter, 2019; Saroglou et al., 2009), past charity behavior (PCB; Zhang et al., 2020), and political orientation (Rutchick, 2010) that may influence the effect on prosocial behavior.
Objectives
The present study is exploratory and aims to achieve four primary objectives. First, it seeks to investigate the impact of religious priming, involving the subliminal priming of “reward” and “punishment” words, on prosocial behavior, specifically in the context of donations to fictitious charities. Second, the study explores the influence of group membership, particularly religious ingroup, and religious outgroup categorizations, on prosocial behavior, again measured through donations to fictitious charities. Third, the research aims to observe whether religiosity, encompassing religious identity, beliefs, and overt involvement, moderates the effect on prosocial behavior. Finally, the study examines whether variables such as sex, past charitable behavior, and political orientation influence the effect on prosocial behavior, once again measured through donations to fictitious charities. Given the lack of a priori predictions, these objectives collectively form the foundation for a comprehensive investigation into the intricate dynamics of religious priming, group membership, religiosity, and additional variables in shaping prosocial behavior within the specified context.
Materials and methods
Sample
Participants were recruited through various channels, including online data collection platforms, social media, and physical notices displayed in common areas such as cafeterias, libraries, bus stops, and seminar halls within the University of Delhi campus. A total of 404 individuals responded, resulting in 123 unfilled or partially filled surveys. This dropout rate (20%–30%) is not uncommon while running experiments online compared to laboratory experiments (Gagné & Franzen, 2023; Peer et al., 2021; Sauter et al., 2020). Dropout rates were also observed to be equivalent in all the treatment conditions.
Subsequently, data from 21 individuals were excluded, as illustrated in Figure 1. In addition, responses to two open-ended suspicion probes designed to assess participants’ awareness of the study’s true purpose led to the removal of data from two participants (see Appendix 1). The mean age of the final sample (N = 258) was 21.3 years, with most participants being female (75%) and predominantly consisting of unemployed educated individuals, primarily college students, residing in urban settings and belonging to the middle to upper-middle-class economic strata. The study protocol and ethics clearance were approved by the Departmental Research Committee (DRC) of the Department of Psychology, University of Delhi, India.
Sample selection flowchart.
Measures and tools used
PsyToolkit
PsyToolkit, a suite of software tools designed for programming psychological experiments on Linux computers, was utilized in this study (Stoet, 2010, 2017). The software, which is distributed under the Gnu Public License and is open source, is specifically designed to facilitate easy customization and expansion to meet individual needs. Its accessibility and adaptability make it suitable not only for technically oriented Linux users but also for students, researchers with limited budgets, and universities in developing countries. PsyToolkit includes a high-level scripting language, a library for the programming language C, and a questionnaire presenter. In addition, it seamlessly integrates with other open-source tools, including the statistical software package R. The software is designed to connect with external hardware, such as IoLab and Cedrus response keyboards, as well as two common digital input/output boards, while also ensuring millisecond timing precision. In the context of this research, PsyToolkit (version: 3.3.2) was employed to code the priming task, charity donation segment, and subsequent questionnaire.
Hindi adaptation of Centrality of Religiosity Scale—CRSi 14
The Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS) assesses the centrality, importance, or salience of religious meanings in an individual’s personality (Dua et al., 2020). Initially developed by Huber and Huber (2012), the scale has been utilized in over 100 studies across 25 countries in sociology, psychology of religion, and religious studies, encompassing more than 100,000 participants. Its robustness and validity have been extensively documented across diverse cultural contexts and countries (Del Castillo et al., 2020; Edara et al., 2021; Lee & Kuang, 2020). In India, the instrument has been translated, adapted, validated, and observed to possess good cross-language equivalence, internal consistency (α = 0.95), split-half reliability (ρ = 0.89), and test–retest reliability (κ > 0.67) (Dua et al., 2020; Grover & Dua, 2019). We employed the 14-item version of the CRSi scale in our study. The measure exhibited Cronbach’s value of 0.93.
Preliminary study to ascertain primes
Before beginning with the main study, pertinent primes relevant for the Hindu sample were identified after conducting a short survey on 21 college students (mean age = 22.6 years). Religious Valence was assessed using a 7-point Likert-type scale from Least Religious to Most Religious. On the other hand, whether that specific word was related to Reward/Punishment aspect of religion was assessed using a two-choice response between Reward and Punishment. After going through a pool of commonplace religious words used in everyday language, two researchers (N.P. and B.S.) independently looked up 20 words each in which several words were common and with the help of the third researcher (D.C.) made a final list of 20 words (10 each for Reward and Punishment). The priming words used in our main study (Top 5 rated by the subjects, each for Reward and Punishment) were selected after conducting a descriptive analysis and running a one sample t test on SPSS version 26 (see Appendix 2 for detailed results).
“Lexical decision-making task” in a masked priming paradigm
In the lexical decision task (LDT), participants were required to discern whether combinations of letters constituted real words or not (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971). For instance, upon encountering the word “BOY,” participants were instructed to respond affirmatively, indicating that it is a genuine English word. In contrast, when presented with the letters “XLDFE,” they were to respond negatively, signifying that it is not a real English word. The task, initially introduced by Meyer and Schvaneveldt in the 1970s, aimed to investigate the organization of long-term memory and the retrieval of information from it. While participants perceived the task as significant, with correct responses contributing to their scores, our objective was to prime them without their conscious awareness of the stimuli. To achieve this, three between-subjects priming treatments were administered: (a) Non-Religious or Control (primes: computer, cupboard, fat, rain, dirtiness); (b) Religious Reward (primes: lakshmi, punya, swarga, moksha, jannat 1 ); and (c) Religious Punishment (primes: hell, shraap, bhasma, paap, narak 2 ). The priming episode consisted of 20 priming trials (the initial five trials were training, and the remaining 15 trials were the actual test), each following a specific sequence of events (refer to Figure 2): a fixation point for 500 ms, a forward mask for 500 ms, the prime for 20 ms, and a backward mask for 500 ms. To check whether the participants were paying attention to the priming, the main word from the LDT was presented, initiating the task, during which participants were instructed to press “A” on their keyboard when a real word was displayed (e.g. doctor, nurse, tree, butter, bread) and “L” when a nonsense word was presented (e.g. flipo, trief, soam, nart, plame). Participants were allotted 2 s to respond to each word, and their responses were recorded, including the Response Time (RT), total correct responses, and the time taken, within the PsyToolkit server. The mean correct responses in the task were 12.12 (SD = 3.43), that is, >80% mean accuracy, indicating that the participants paid attention during the priming task.
Subliminal priming paradigm.
Money allocation task
After completing the initial task, participants were then taken to a new page which read (Pettit, 2021): Thank you for participating in the previous task. Based on your performance and as a token of appreciation, you get an opportunity to take part in a lucky-draw through which you stand the chance of winning ₹2000! In case you win the amount, would you be interested in donating some of it to a charity? Mentioned below are some of the charities/non-profits that you can donate to if you win the lucky draw. The amount can be decided by you completely and will be deducted from the ₹2000 in case you do win.
Two between-subject group treatments were administered in the study: (a) Religious Ingroup Condition, featuring Hindu Charities (Dev Bhoomi Community Centre, Swami Damodaran Cancer Society, Om Vishwas Trust Fund, Devi Vikaas Foundation, None of the above); and (b) Religious Outgroup Condition, comprising Muslim and Christian Charities (Bismillah Housing Community Centre, Imam Ali Cancer Society, St. Francis Trust Mission, Christ’s Angel Foundation, None of the above). The descriptions of the charities in both conditions were identical, with the only difference being the name of the charity that helped infer the religious connotation attached (see Appendix 3 for charity descriptions). Prompts were provided throughout the framing of the charity description, which confirmed that the charity was going to benefit those from the same religious community, for example, Imam Ali Cancer Society (it was mentioned that awareness would be created in underprivileged Muslim communities), Bismillah Housing Community Centre (it was mentioned that this charity would help the poor and provide refugee services. It was framed at the time when members of the Muslim community from Bangladesh sought refuge in India, which was a national debate at the time), and so on. Subsequently, participants across all conditions were presented with the dependent variable, prosocial behavior, which was assessed using a money allocation task. Participants were instructed to indicate the amount of their anticipated prize money (in the event of winning) that they would be willing to donate to their chosen charity. A slider (refer to Figure 3) was provided for participants to select the donation amount, ranging from ₹0 to 2000 ($25) in 20 steps, allowing for donations of ₹0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, or 2000. 3 Following this task, participants completed a questionnaire, which included a suspicion probe, demographic questions, the CRSi-14, inquiries about PCB, and an open-ended response regarding their selection of a specific charity.
Slider for donation.
Analysis
An a priori power analysis was conducted using GPower 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009; Kang, 2021) to determine the required sample size for the study. The factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) planned for data analysis informed the power analysis. The level of significance (α) was set at 0.05, with a desired statistical power (1-β) of 0.80, and an effect size (Cohen’s f) of 0.229, which was an average of prior effect sizes in studies that employed subliminal priming in a religious context (Shariff et al., 2016; Snell et al., 2024). The power analysis revealed that a minimum sample size of 251 was necessary to achieve the desired level of statistical power. Consequently, at least 42 participants were required in the six treatment conditions to ensure adequate power for detecting the anticipated effects. The statistical analyses used Python programming language, leveraging the “pandas” library and “statsmodels” package. This approach was chosen for its capacity to ensure greater reproducibility and precision in statistical modeling, particularly in regression analysis. The ability to script analyses and use advanced diagnostic tools enhances the transparency and replicability of our findings.
Main study
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the six treatment conditions (3*2 factorial design) using the built-in PsyToolkit algorithm. The PsyToolkit interface allowed an overview of the total filled surveys while data collection was in commencement. The researcher (D.C.) manually monitored this every third day. Data collection was stopped when each treatment condition had >45 participants, so the total filled surveys were 281. The online survey commenced with an online informed consent process, followed by the LDT within a priming paradigm (three levels: Non-Religious Neutral/Religious Reward/Religious Punishment), the money allocation task (two levels: Ingroup Hindu charities/Outgroup Muslim & Christian charities), and concluded with a questionnaire encompassing suspicion probes, demographic inquiries, the CRSi-14 for measuring religiosity, and questions pertaining to PCB. The survey concluded with a debriefing form, elucidating the genuine purpose and intent of the study. In total, participants spent less than 15 min completing the survey (mean = 13.96 min), which was conducted over a period of 16 days, divided into two separate phases. Participants’ names were entered into a ₹2000 ($25) prize drawing, and the winner was determined at the conclusion of the study. As per the recommendation from Simmons et al. (2012), we report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study.
Results
The study aimed to investigate the influence of religious priming (subliminal priming with words associated with “reward” and “punishment”) and group membership (religious ingroup vs outgroup) on prosocial behavior, as measured by donations to fictitious charities. A two-way ANOVA (3 × 2) was conducted, yielding no significant main effects of priming, F(2, 255) = 0.675, p = 0.643, np2 = 0.005, or group membership, F(1, 255) = 0.009, p = 0.924, np2 = 0.00. Furthermore, no significant interaction effects between priming and group membership on prosocial behavior were observed, F(2, 255) = 0.675, p = 0.643, np2 = 0.005, as shown in Table 1 and post hoc comparisons have been shown in Table 2. A logistic regression was conducted to examine the effect of the priming and group conditions on the binary decision of whether to donate (donated vs did not donate). The model was not statistically significant, χ²(255) = .375, p > 0.05, indicating that neither the priming nor the group condition significantly predicted the decision to donate. To check the effect of the nature of priming on prosocial behavior, an analysis of covariance was carried out, which revealed no significant main effect of the nature of primes (religious vs nonreligious) on prosocial behavior, F(1, 255) = 0.591, p = 0.443, np2 = 0.002. In addition, religiosity as a covariate did not significantly influence prosocial behavior, F(1, 255) = 0.017, p = 0.897, np2 = 0.00. These findings suggest that neither the type of prime nor the level of religiosity significantly affected participants’ willingness to engage in prosocial behavior in this study.
Descriptive statistics and two-way ANOVA among priming, group membership, and prosocial behavior as measured by donations in Indian rupees (N = 258).
P = Priming, G = Group membership; DV = ₹0–2000; nx = sample size for Treatment (Tx).
Post hoc comparisons.
gp. = group, punish = punishment.
Multiple linear regression analyses
In the first regression model, group membership, sex, religiosity (measured by CRSi), priming condition, and PCB were used as predictors for prosocial behavior. The Breusch–Pagan test for homoscedasticity was not significant (BP = 10.10, p = 0.12), indicating that the variances of the residuals are equal across levels of the independent variables. This model accounted for 3.5% of the variance in prosocial behavior (R² = .035). However, only PCB emerged as a significant predictor of prosocial behavior (b = 124.90, p = 0.008). The regression results of this model are given in Table 3. It is important to note that while the model adhered to the assumptions of homoscedasticity and multicollinearity, the Shapiro–Wilk test revealed a violation of the normality assumption in the residuals (p = 0.000).
Regression coefficients of group, sex, religiosity, priming (dummies), and PCB on prosocial behavior.
N = 258; PCB = past charity behavior; excluded variables = non-religious neutral.
p < 0.05.
To further test the influence of PCB in isolation, Model 2 was constructed solely with PCB as the predictor. This approach was necessary to assess whether the primary model might be overfitting by including PCB among a broader set of predictors. The focused analysis, which complied with homoscedasticity (Breusch–Pagan test, BP = 0.03, p = 0.87), accounted for 3% of the variance in prosocial behavior (R² = .03), identifying PCB as a significant positive predictor (b = 122.57, p = 0.005). Results for this model are presented in Table 4.
Regression coefficients of PCB on prosocial behavior.
N = 258; PCB = past charity behavior.
Bayesian analysis
First, the standard deviation was observed to be comparable to the mean scores in all the treatment conditions because of the large continuum of the DV (0–2000). Second, employing the standard framework of frequentist statistics featuring p-value null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is usually considered ill-equipped to provide evidence for the absence of an effect (Keysers et al., 2020). Hence, Bayesian methods offered robust frameworks for analysis in such scenarios. The analysis guidelines were informed by articles detailing the planning, executing, interpreting, and reporting of findings (Rouder et al., 2018; Van Den Bergh et al., 2020; Van Doorn et al., 2023). A Bayes factor hypothesis test was carried out in a factorial ANOVA (3 × 2) model. The prior model probability was set at P(M) = 0.2, giving all possible models equal credence. The null model was the best model in the posterior distribution, BFM = 19.791. Moderate evidence favoring the null model was observed in group membership (BF10 = 0.137, BF01 = 1/0.137 = 7.30). This indicates that the data support the absence of an effect related to group membership. Strong evidence favoring the null model was observed in the priming condition (BF10 = 0.056, BF01 = 1/0.056 = 17.94). This implies that the data strongly support the absence of an effect in the priming condition.
Discussion
The “reward” aspect of religion encompasses the positive end goals associated with adherence to a particular religion and its doctrines, including material, emotional, and transcendental benefits such as wealth, salvation, and heaven in the afterlife, which are anticipated (Harrell, 2012). Conversely, the “punishment” aspect of religion pertains to non-conformity, defiance, or rejection of moral narratives, potentially leading to negative implications such as curses, destruction, and hell in the afterlife, which are to be avoided. While it is commonly believed in the literature that the “negative” aspect holds greater influence than the “reward” aspect in promoting prosocial behavior (McKay et al., 2011), the current study did not find either aspect to significantly enhance prosocial behavior relative to the Nonreligious priming (or control) condition (T1, T2). The choice of priming employed may have contributed to the non-significant findings. “Subliminal priming,” while methodologically advantageous due to participants’ unawareness of the study’s nature, is less likely to elicit the expected response compared to “contextual priming” (Watanabe & Laurent, 2020). Further research utilizing the same experimental methodology with a similar Hindu sample is warranted to explore the differences in the choice of priming method and its overall effectiveness.
The entire priming task was conducted online, providing individuals with the comfort of participating from their homes and running the experiment according to their preferences. While randomization was maintained, there were other variables that could not have been controlled if the same task were to be conducted in a physical laboratory, such as the presence of other individuals, environmental factors, time of day, recent activities, and mood. In addition, the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period characterized by increased screen time and eye strain (Ganne et al., 2021), potentially confounding the priming effects. Priming is known to be highly sensitive to variations in experimental features, participants, and cultural contexts (Cesario, 2014). The selection of priming words is critical and was based on the researchers’ review and a brief study, wherein the religious valence of the priming word was assessed; while the primes selected are commonplace within the Indian milieu and used in everyday language, their potential to elicit personal religious or divine associations remains unexplored which serves as a limitation of our study. Specifically, utilizing images of deities, religious symbols, or passages from sacred texts may have served as a better prime to successfully activate the accessibility of religious content in participants’ minds (Cavrak & Kleider-Offutt, 2015; K. A. Johnson et al., 2013). However, the study aimed to investigate how religious priming influences an individual’s prosocial behavior in everyday life, within the context of their homes and convenience, rather than in congregational or “special” occasions and festivals, where religiousness may be associated with socially desirable responding and other religious stereotypical behaviors (Gebauer et al., 2017). This approach sought to translate the effects of religiosity on prosocial behavior to natural settings involving genuine prosocial actions (Pichon et al., 2007).
Religion serves as a prominent marker of identity for individuals who consider themselves religious. Consequently, the ingroup condition featured four charities with Hindu names, while the outgroup condition comprised four charities associated with other religions, specifically Islam and Christianity. Despite the religious association of the recipient charity, the results indicated that participants were equally inclined to donate in both conditions. One plausible explanation for these findings may be attributed to the characteristics of the study’s sample. The participants, predominantly college students with an average age of approximately 22, represent an educated, urban demographic in India. This transitional phase from adolescence to adulthood is characterized by exploration, moratorium, and naïve iconoclasm, leading to identity distress, particularly as religious identity remains in a formative state (Palmeroni et al., 2020). During emerging adulthood, religious identity may be less focused on norm adherence and traditional religious practices, and instead may involve a cognitive and emotional process of personal belief and spiritual development, where prosocial behavior may not be a primary concern (Scroggs et al., 2018). Furthermore, individuals in this demographic may have had limited exposure to volunteer service, caregiving, and civic engagement, as well as fewer opportunities to integrate their sense of identity, meaning, and social concerns (Ebstyne King & Furrow, 2008). Religious priming has also been observed in past studies to be more effective for religious participants in influencing normative conduct learned through active membership in religious communities (Lang et al., 2016; Nichols et al., 2020; Shariff, 2015).
The act of donation is a costly behavior, necessitating more than a mere cognitive understanding of religious teachings or global positive emotionality (Van Cappellen et al., 2016). It is important to note that the money expected to be donated was not the participants’ own, but rather a hypothetical sum that they could have potentially won in a lucky draw. In such a scenario, participants are cognizant of the slim likelihood of winning a lucky draw, and donating to a charity would entail forgoing “free” money that could be used for personal purposes, particularly considering that a majority (82%) of the sample was unemployed or studying, rendering them less inclined to donate. Furthermore, an interpretation of these results may reflect the harmonious social milieu and diverse cultural heritage of India, a secular state that embraces a multitude of indigenous practices and religions. “Hinduism” is often regarded as a “way of life” (Hussain, 2021), wherein religious pluralism is commonly accepted, particularly among relatively educated and well-off families. Indians value religious tolerance, even if they may lead religiously segregated lives (Evans & Sahgal, 2021).
The definition of “Hinduism” has exhibited versatility and evolution, particularly in recent years, coinciding with the unprecedented electoral success of the current ruling party in India and its Hindu nationalist ideology, which has sparked a debate over the definition and perception of what it means to be a Hindu (Kumar, 2022). Consequently, political orientation was a unique demographic collected due to the liberal-conservative divide in mainstream media narratives, with the aim of exploring whether individuals with differing political orientations were more inclined to engage in prosocial behavior driven by religious motivations. However, the data revealed a significant skew, with only approximately 2% of the sample identifying as conservative in their political beliefs, precluding further analysis. In our study, no significant sex differences were observed, consistent with findings from past studies (Saroglou et al., 2005). Notably, PCB emerged as a significant predictor of prosocial behavior, with individuals who had donated to charities in the past year demonstrating a greater likelihood of donating, potentially attributable to their prior experience and engagement (McKay et al., 2011). Furthermore, no significant effects of religiosity were identified. As reported by Apostol and Getz (2022), religiosity was not found to be associated with monetary-based prosocial behavior, suggesting that situational factors exert a stronger influence on prosocial behavior than religiosity (Xygalatas et al., 2016).
The null results could also be attributed to several contextual and cultural factors that influence the effectiveness of religious cues in promoting prosocial behavior. Religious cues indicating the presence of a monitoring supernatural entity are more effective in enhancing prosocial behavior within contextually relevant environments, such as religious rituals or places of worship (Batara, 2016), than more abstract settings like online platforms or hypothetical donation scenarios, which may have reduced the participant’s conscious appraisal of being “watched” (Yilmaz & Bahçekapili, 2016). It is also essential to consider the cultural influences in the development of religious cognition, suggesting that understanding how different cultures conceptualize divine monitoring could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms underlying prosocial behavior (Richert et al., 2017). Furthermore, the efficacy of religious priming on prosocial behavior may vary based on cultural context and the specific characteristics of the religious beliefs involved. By addressing these cultural nuances and contextual factors, future studies can better elucidate the dynamics of the supernatural monitoring hypothesis (Atkinson & Bourrat, 2011) to understand its boundary condition and subsequent implications for understanding prosocial behavior across different societies. Future studies would benefit from incorporating individual-related variables such as personality, cognitive, and demographic parameters, known or suspected to be closely linked to both social functioning and religiosity (Lu & Chan, 2015). In addition, individuals’ affiliations appear to be more predictive of prosocial behaviors than their worldview beliefs, whether religious or secular (Galen et al., 2021). Furthermore, conducting a study utilizing a direct and immediate, rather than hypothetical and distant, donation task with sound ecological validity would be beneficial.
Footnotes
Appendix 1. Removed participant responses
| Response No. | Please briefly write on what you think this study has been about so far. | Has there been anything that you did not understand or find odd about this study? |
|---|---|---|
|
|
The choosing of charity and amount was for seeing decision making skills, depending upon available information. |
|
|
|
something related to |
|
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
