Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

[Tank]

Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

"Love thy neighbor" is preached from many a pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people.

In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the July issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost...

..."Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people," Willer said...

I wonder what causes the more religious individual to be less compassionate? I suspect a 3rd factor (not determined in the research) that predisposes people to be both highly religious and less compassionate. It may be a tendency to be selfish. Highly religious people are often bullies and lack empathy. Monotheistic Abrahamic religions are hierarchical and dictatorial, both characteristics that attract selfish people when taken to extremes.

Again I suspect that religions amplify the inherent characteristics of individuals. If one is altruistic/unselfish and religious one will do the 'good' things better. If one is a bully/selfish  one will do the bad things that religions can sanction.

But it is interesting that the non-religious/low-religious were consistently more compassionate in the observations. Possibly because they took more personal responsibility?

[The Magic Pudding]

But it is interesting that the non-religious/low-religious were consistently more compassionate in the observations. Possibly because they took more personal responsibility?

The non religious may be more concerned with the here and now.
The religious will sometimes be more concerned about saving a persons soul than their life.
If I've given 10% of my income, spent my Sunday in church and followed the rules, do I have to care as well?

[DeterminedJuliet]

But it is interesting that the non-religious/low-religious were consistently more compassionate in the observations. Possibly because they took more personal responsibility?

The non religious may be more concerned with the here and now.
The religious will sometimes be more concerned about saving a persons soul than their life.
If I've given 10% of my income, spent my Sunday in church and followed the rules, do have to care as well?

I think there's something to this. Most people only have a finite amount of concern that they're able to feel. If you spend 90% of your mental and emotional energy worrying about pleasing a temperamental dictator in the sky, you don't have a lot left over for your fellow man.

There's also the thing about organized religion teaching many of its follows to view humanity as inherently flawed/sinful/unworthy. If we're all a bunch of sinners, and the only REAL salvation is through your faith, why waste time trying to help each other? The only real help to be had is in finding religion. 

[Ali]

In fairness, I think that most Judeo-Christian churches actively promote charity.  I don't think that the article said that the religious are less charitable, only that they are less likely to couch their charity in terms of compassion and empathy.  So I may self report that I give to charity because I feel empathy for the needy, whereas a Christian (for example) might self report that they give to charity because that is their duty as a Christian.

I'm just saying, I don't think that this article shows that the less religious actually do more for their fellow man, just that we are motivated by different things.

[En_Route]

First off,such a small study deserves to be treated with circumspection, if not downright scepticism. Bear in mind also that it seems to refer to America only, and I would vouchsafe that the composition of religious beliefs there is atypical. Apart from all this,as Ali has already  intimated,the study nowhere implies a positive correlation between generosity and irreligiosity. I see that the authors speculate that what motivates religious individuals may be an explicit sense of moral obligation,whereas the less religiously inclined respond on a more spontaneous basis to  immediate claims on their emotions (one author cites as their inspiration for the article the case of a non-religious friend who was only moved to donate to Haiti by emotional rather than logical considerations). You might therefore even argue that the religious personality evidences a more coherent and principled approach, whereas the irreligious personality is more fickle, acting only when the empathy button happens to be activated.

[Ali]

First off,such a small study deserves to be treated with circumspection, if not downright scepticism. Bear in mind also that it seems to refer to America only, and I would vouchsafe that the composition of religious beliefs there is atypical. Apart from all this,as Ali has already  intimated,the study nowhere implies a positive correlation between generosity and irreligiosity. I see that the authors speculate that what motivates religious individuals may be an explicit sense of moral obligation,whereas the less religiously inclined respond on a more spontaneous basis to  immediate claims on their emotions (one author cites as their inspiration for the article the case of a non-religious friend who was only moved to donate to Haiti by emotional rather than logical considerations). You might therefore even argue that the religious personality evidences a more coherent and principled approach, whereas the irreligious personality is more fickle, acting only when the empathy button happens to be activated.

This is what I was thinking too.  Which is not to downplay the importance of empathy, but at the end of the day it would be a bad idea to leave help to the needy up to a solely emotional decision.  Perhaps I'm going through a rough patch in my life, and don't have the emotional resources to spare.  Perhaps the person is truly needy, but I don't like them personally, and therefore they don't inspire any great empathy in me.  Note that this is why I am deeply skeptical when anarchists and Where is John Galt types suggest that people would give as much (more, maybe!) to charity if there was no social safety net.  Leaving these things up to personal whims seems like an invitation to see more people dying in the streets.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think you might have left out the tribal aspect (in-group/out-group mentality) which might drive people to empathise less with those that are not part of their social network. It can be sutil, but I think it's another factor, especially because it's so encouraged by religious mentality.

Also, with the religious, they might believe that if someone is needy or desperate, then they deserve to be in that state. When my mother was going through a born-again phase I would hear her church friends say the most terrible things about people who suddenly suffered personal tragedies. "They must have done something to anger god..."

I also came across another study that correlated welfare states with more secular tendencies, I'm never going to find the link to it though...Religious countries tended towards the opposite.  

[OldGit]

Seems to me the Spanish Inquisition were a bit lacking in charitable feelings, whereas the Salvation Army do little else but serve the community.

[Sweetdeath]

Seems to me the Spanish Inquisition were a bit lacking in charitable feelings, whereas the Salvation Army do little else but serve the community.

Haha

[philosoraptor]

Seems to me the Spanish Inquisition were a bit lacking in charitable feelings, whereas the Salvation Army do little else but serve the community.

Unless they're gay, of course. 

[Sweetdeath]

Seems to me the Spanish Inquisition were a bit lacking in charitable feelings, whereas the Salvation Army do little else but serve the community.

Unless they're gay, of course. 

Which is why i stopped shopping there.

The red cross is a better organization anyway.