The effects of implicit religious primes on dictator game allocations: A preregistered replication experiment.

Cristina Gomes · Michael E. McCullough

124 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Experimental Psychology General

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Abstract

Shariff and Norenzayan (2007) discovered that people allocate more money to anonymous strangers in a dictator game following a scrambled sentence task that involved words with religious meanings. We conducted a direct replication of key elements of Shariff and Norenzayan's (2007) Experiment 2, with some additional changes. Specifically, we (a) collected data from a much larger sample of participants (N = 650); (b) added a second religious priming condition that attempted to prime thoughts of religion less conspicuously; (c) modified the wording of some of their task explanations to avoid deceiving our participants; (d) added a more explicit awareness probe; (e) reduced prime-probe time; and (f) performed statistical analyses that are more appropriate for non-normal data. We did not find a statistically significant effect for religious priming. Additional tests for possible between-subjects moderators of the religious priming effect also yielded nonsignificant results. A small-scale meta-analysis, which included all known studies investigating the effect of religious priming on dictator game offers, suggested that the mean effect size is not different from zero, although the wide confidence intervals indicate that conclusions regarding this effect should be drawn with caution. Finally, we found some evidence of small-study effects: Studies with larger samples tended to produce smaller effects (a pattern consistent with publication bias). Overall, these results suggest that the effects of religious priming on dictator game allocations might be either not reliable or else quite sensitive to differences in methods or in the populations in which the effect has been examined.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 124 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test 2011Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials 1996Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action.2014The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method 2003Improved tests for a random effects meta‐regression with a single covariate 2011Dictator games: a meta study 1979The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications.2016The Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a Real Labor Market∗

Cited by

2015People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups.2017The evolution of religion and morality: a synthesis of ethnographic and experimental evidence from eight societies 2019Supernatural norm enforcement: Thinking about karma and God reduces selfishness among believers 2017The relation between different types of religiosity and analytic cognitive style

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.