Belief in God: Why People Believe, and Why They Don’t

Belief in God: Why People Believe, and Why They Don’t. Brett Mercier, Stephanie R. Kramer, Azim F. Shariff. Current Directions in Psychological Science, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418754491

Abstract: Belief in a god or gods is a central feature in the lives of billions of people and a topic of perennial interest within psychology. However, research over the past half decade has achieved a new level of understanding regarding both the ultimate and proximate causes of belief in God. Ultimate causes—the evolutionary influences on a trait—shed light on the adaptive value of belief in God and the reasons why a tendency toward this belief exists in humans. Proximate causes—the immediate influences on the expression of a trait—explain variation and changes in belief. We review this research and discuss remaining barriers to a fuller understanding of belief in God.

Keywords: belief, God, evolution, religion

Bullshit-receptivity (perceived meaningfulness of bullshit sentences) & profoundness-receptivity (perceived meaningfulness of genuinely profound sentences) are negatively/positively linked to prosocial behavior

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior. Arvid Erlandsson et al. PLOS, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201474

Abstract: Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. “Your movement transforms universal observations”) from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. “The person who never made a mistake never tried something new”). Although bullshit-sensitivity has been linked to other individual difference measures, it has not yet been shown to predict any actual behavior. We therefore conducted a survey study with over a thousand participants from a general sample of the Swedish population and assessed participants’ bullshit-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven bullshit sentences) and profoundness-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven genuinely profound sentences), and used these variables to predict two types of prosocial behavior (self-reported donations and a decision to volunteer for charity). Despite bullshit-receptivity and profoundness-receptivity being positively correlated with each other, logistic regression analyses showed that profoundness-receptivity had a positive association whereas bullshit-receptivity had a negative association with both types of prosocial behavior. These relations held up for the most part when controlling for potentially intermediating factors such as cognitive ability, time spent completing the survey, sex, age, level of education, and religiosity. The results suggest that people who are better at distinguishing the pseudo-profound from the actually profound are more prosocial.

How an individual interprets a relationship social comparison have implications for the self and one’s relationship; we studied the effects on relationship satisfaction & commitment, satisfaction with life, & happiness for both dating & married individuals

Rolf Degen summarizing: People compare their romantic relationships to those of others in ways that make their own look better. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1024514641668567040

Relationship social comparisons in dating and marital relationships: Adding relationship social comparison interpretations. Marian M. Morry & Tamara A. Sucharyna. The Journal of Social Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1498826

ABSTRACT: How an individual interprets a relationship social comparison may have important implications for the self and one’s relationship. We asked whether these interpretations significantly mediated the relation between the manipulated social comparison direction and relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, satisfaction with life, and happiness for both dating (Studies 1 and 2) and married (Study 2) individuals. Participants were randomly assigned to make an upward or downward comparison to a friend’s romantic relationship and completed measures of their interpretations, relationship quality, satisfaction with life, and happiness. For both dating and married individuals, there were indirect effects of manipulated social comparison direction through the interpretations for all dependent variables. Although there were some differences in mediation for married and dating individuals, the effect sizes were not significantly different.

KEYWORDS: Cognitions, relationship quality, relationship type, social comparisons

1 in 4 people preferred the perceptual concept of dark over the perceptual concept of light; these people scored higher in neuroticism, experienced greater depressive feelings in daily life; dark preferences shared relationship with generalised anxiety symptoms

Hello darkness my old friend: preferences for darkness vary by neuroticism and co-occur with negative affect. Michelle R. Persich, Jessica L. Bair, Becker Steinemann, Stephanie Nelson, Adam K. Fetterman & Michael D. Robinson. Cognition and Emotion, https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1504746

ABSTRACT: Metaphors frequently link negative affect with darkness and associations of this type have been established in several experimental paradigms. Given the ubiquity and strength of these associations, people who prefer dark to light may be more prone to negative emotional experiences and symptoms. A five study investigation (total N = 605) couches these ideas in a new theoretical framework and then examines them. Across studies, 1 in 4 people preferred the perceptual concept of dark over the perceptual concept of light. These dark-preferring people scored higher in neuroticism (Studies 1 and 2) and experienced greater depressive feelings in daily life (Study 3). Moreover, dark preferences shared a robust relationship with depressive symptoms (Study 4) as well as generalised anxiety symptoms (Study 5). The results provide novel insights into negative affectivity and extend conceptual metaphor theory in a way that is capable of making individual difference predictions.

KEYWORDS: Neuroticism, negative affect, conceptual metaphor, darkness, preferences

Pettiness, or intentional attentiveness to trivial details of resource exchanges harms communal-sharing relationships by making (even objectively generous) exchanges feel transactional

Kim, T., Zhang, T., & Norton, M. I. (2018). Pettiness in social exchange. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000463

Abstract: We identify and document a novel construct—pettiness, or intentional attentiveness to trivial details—and examine its (negative) implications in interpersonal relationships and social exchange. Seven studies show that pettiness manifests across different types of resources (both money and time), across cultures with differing tolerance for ambiguity in relationships (the United States, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria), and is distinct from related constructs such as generosity, conscientiousness, fastidious, and counternormativity. Indeed, people dislike petty exchanges even when the (petty) amount given is more generous (e.g., a gift card for $5.15 rather than $5), suggesting that pettiness may in some instances serve as a stronger relationship signal than are actual benefits exchanged. Attentiveness to trivial details of resource exchanges harms communal-sharing relationships by making (even objectively generous) exchanges feel transactional. When exchanging resources, people should be wary of both how much they exchange and the manner in which they exchange it.

In both sexes, hormone levels play an important role by increasing the sensitivity towards the sexual signals emitted by the potential partners & determining the expression of sexual signals that allows the potential partner or intra-sexual competitor to identify the reproductive status

Sexual Incentive and Choice. Armando Ferreira-Nuño et al. Current Sexual Health Reports, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11930-018-0158-1

Abstract
Purpose of the Review: In the present manuscript, we review the most important sexual cues in rodents and mammals that influence mate choice. Sexual cues lead to the approach and selection of a partner.

Recent Findings: In both sexes, hormone levels play an important role by increasing the sensitivity towards the sexual signals emitted by the potential partners and determining the expression of sexual signals that allows the potential partner or intra-sexual competitor to identify the reproductive status. Similarly, sexual cues emitted by both sexes can modify the hormonal status of the potential partner or intra-sexual competitors, so that they can be better skilled reproductively for sexual competition.

Summary: Future research should analyze the impact of the use of hormonal contraceptives, since it has been shown that they alter the sexual signals emitted and could influence the selection of partners in humans. In addition, this review will be important for anyone using a rodent model to understand sexual motivation.