Worldwide, Highly Religious More Likely to Help Others

[Invictus ChiKen]

Link

Worldwide, Highly Religious More Likely to Help Others
Pattern holds throughout the world and across major religions

Multi-countryReligionReligion and Social TrendsWorld
by Brett Pelham and Steve Crabtree
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Polls conducted in more than 140 countries worldwide between 2006 and 2008 show that those whose responses identify them as highly religious are more likely than less religious respondents to report that they have engaged in each of three "helping behaviors" in the past month. In all four major global regions, for example, highly religious people are more likely than those who report being less religious to report having donated money to a charity in that time.



The pattern is similar when Gallup asked respondents whether they had volunteered their time to an organization in the month prior to being surveyed. Though the overall numbers are lower here in all regions except Africa, highly religious respondents are again more likely to say "yes" than those who are less religious.



One question these findings raise is the degree to which highly religious people reserve their charitable activities for members of their own religious communities. After all, many religions encourage -- or even require -- members to donate their time or money to their local faith-based organizations. Are highly religious people also more likely than those who are less religious to say they've helped a stranger in the past month? The answer is yes -- though the differences are smaller in this case.



The "religion effects" we see in these questions are consistent not only across the major global regions, but also consistent across the world's largest faith traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Among respondents who identified with each of these major religions, those who fall into the highly religious category are more likely than those who are less religious to say they've engaged in all three helping behaviors, with differences for helping a stranger ranging from 7 percentage points among Buddhists to 15 points among Jews.

Bottom Line

We cannot conclusively attribute these helping behaviors to the direct influence of religiosity. It's possible, for example, that these differences occur because inherently helpful people may be inherently attracted to religion.

But it does make intuitive sense that religious people around the globe are likely to engage in helping behaviors. After all, selflessness is a principle tenet of many religious traditions: One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat or almsgiving, for example, similar to the long-standing practice of tithing among Christians. Important principles of Buddhism include Sila, which requires people to treat others as they would prefer to be treated themselves, and Dāna, which loosely translates as "generosity."

However, the tendency of highly religious people around the world to say they donate their time and money does seem more impressive when you consider that, from a global perspective, those people are consistently poorer than those who are less religious. Among those highly religious respondents worldwide who reported their annual incomes to Gallup, the average figure (converted into international dollars) was about $10,000. Among those less religious respondents who reported their incomes, the average was about $17,500. Seen in this light, the data presented here offer compelling evidence of the role of religious dedication in helping to encourage supportive, community-oriented behaviors in areas where they may be most needed.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted between 2006 and 2008 with at least 2,000 adults in most countries. Because most analyses focus on large numbers of participants (e.g., more than 40,000 highly religious people in Africa), confidence intervals were only a fraction of a point (i.e., less than ±1 percentage point). In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

I ran across this and thought it was interesting. Seeing as we often have study after study about the disasterous effects of religion I figure hey what about the good side?

Honestly thought this really shocked me, I always figured religion didn't play a part in how likely others are to help. Anyone care to pick this one apart?

[Erik von Nein]

The graphs cut out of the paste job done help explain things a little more clearly. They defined being "highly religious" as religion being important in their daily lives and having attended a religious service in the last week. Anyone else was "less religious." Hmm.

Also, the "have you helped a stranger" question showed that the difference was a lot less severe (6-9% difference) than the other questions (7-11%), leading me to believe that when "highly religious" people define donating to charity they mean donating to their own religious groups (churches and such).

Requires more study, I think. I'm rather skeptical of the notion, but it could be accurate.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Considering that most of the studies that I've heard of over the years show the opposite, I doubt it. For example, there was a recent study showing that atheist doctors are more likely to volunteer to help the poor than religious ones *.

And then there's the definition of "helping behaviors"; giving money to a "charitable organization" run by your own religion is more like advertising than charity.


* I'll provide a link to a cite if and when I find one that isn't dead

[Darth Wong]

The study doesn't compare religious people to atheists. By setting the bar at people who attend church every week, it mostly compares religious people to other more apathetic religious people.

[mr friendly guy]

Slightly deviating from the topic, but in this type of studies, does any one ever do (need to do) some statistical analysis for significance? In medicine, if drug company A was comparing a new drug to placebo, there would be analysis to make sure the difference wasn't just a fluke. So I don't see why these studies shouldn't be subjected to the same criteria.

[Rye]

Religiosity and temple attendance aren't the same thing, it really bears repeating. Being extra religious basically means you're away with the fairies more of the time (like praying more), attending church tends to mean you buy into groupthink and do what you're told. This isn't inherently bad; if you get told to be altruistic over and over again, you might very well do so, you might do it out of moral duty, or you might do it because you were told to and you're suggestible.

I also wonder what charities these people have been donating to. I suspect most of them will be thinking of good causes, but we all know a big slice of that will be the church itself, anti-gay legislation and Hamas or equivalents. I also suspect the church of scientology would score quite highly on this, since they're a really refined setup of cultish groupthink and attendant charities.

[Samuel]

Among those highly religious respondents worldwide who reported their annual incomes to Gallup, the average figure (converted into international dollars) was about $10,000. Among those less religious respondents who reported their incomes, the average was about $17,500.

I think this is the more salient point. Income is another feature the more religious have in common- in short, the poorer are more feverant. And of course it is a large percentage of their income- they have so little that it is really easy to get to.

[bobalot]

Do they count donations to their own place of worship? These "donations" could be fairly significant but fairly useless to the needy.

[Traveller]

I really would not put too much errr...faith in a poll like this. The important thing to consider is how your typical fundy is going to respond to the questions in a poll like this. For questions two and three, pretty much every act, no matter how trivial is going to be viewed as proof positive of there faiths inherent virtues, iow, when asking a fundy these sorts of questions, I would seriously doubt their ability to give objective answers to these types of questions. Giveing an impartial assesments of there own actions is not something the 'strongly religious' are noted for. Far too subjective to draw any meaningful conclusion(s). At least question one can be rigorously defined. Its not hard to see what Gallup was really trying to get at with this poll. In essence, does religious=more altruistic. The question is a valid one, and has been the subject of scientific study, but I wouldnt really trust anyone's subjective opinion in a random poll like this. After all, even they admit they cant directly tie religion to 'helpful behavior'.

One other thing I feel worth considering, the poll indicates that fundies overall are more inclined to give to money. I wouldnt dispute this, but it is important to consider most strongly religious are going to give there money directly to there own sect(understandable). I cant speak for Asia, but In the west, christianity has a long history behind it of conditioning its followers to give to (their) church. They have had after all, close on 2000 years of practice at it. While I wont question that poorer, strongly religious types are more 'generous' per capita, I do wonder how much of this behavior is due to conditioning rather than careful reflection.

[Stuart]

Frankly I think the whole issue is too generalized to make a substantive decision on. It boils down to what person, what religon, when, where , how and why, all of which factors create such an indistinct and undefined question that an answer is impossible. A reasonable conclusion based on this evidence might be

"Some religious people are, under some circumstances and at some times, more likely to help some other people than some non-religious people."

Which is meaningless of course.

A friend of mine was involved in the rescue work in Thailand after the 2004 Tsumani. The first emergency aid that arrived was a planeload of supplies donated by a Southern Baptist church in the US with some volunteers who got to work handing the supplies out to whoever needed them. Nothing arrived from Muslim sources for days and when it did, the people who brought it refused to give out any to non-Muslims. I'll bet if we look around, we can find cases that are exactly the reverse. Too broad a subject for generalizations.

[Darth Wong]

As I said before, the peculiar conditions of the poll (requiring attendance every single week) actually exclude most Christians in America or Canada. Certainly, the only people I've ever known to take that whole "10% tithe" thing seriously were the really hardcore fundies. And I have to wonder how many of their non-church donations were also at the behest of their preachers, because I can say from experience that in those churches, the preacher tells people what they should be donating to, apart from the "tithe".

[General Zod]

A friend of mine was involved in the rescue work in Thailand after the 2004 Tsumani. The first emergency aid that arrived was a planeload of supplies donated by a Southern Baptist church in the US with some volunteers who got to work handing the supplies out to whoever needed them. Nothing arrived from Muslim sources for days and when it did, the people who brought it refused to give out any to non-Muslims. I'll bet if we look around, we can find cases that are exactly the reverse. Too broad a subject for generalizations.

Weren't there cases of some "missionaries" outright refusing aid unless the recipients converted to their particular brand of religious nonsense in the 04 tsunami? I seem to remember something about it making the rounds on the news networks at the time.

[Kanastrous]

I'll take the poll at face value.

People who claim to be more devout also claim to be more charitable.

For whatever good that's supposed to be, to anybody.

[Darth Wong]

I've noticed that American Christians are ironically more willing to help people three thousand miles away than people in their own countries. The Southern Baptists are an excellent example: they smack down every attempt to institute universal health care for their own fellow citizens, improve living conditions for the poor, etc., and then they rush to their bankbooks to help people in faraway nations.

I suspect it's because they feel these other people are more "deserving", whereas they've been taught that domestic poor are not.

[Kanastrous]

I've noticed that American Christians are ironically more willing to help people three thousand miles away than people in their own countries. The Southern Baptists are an excellent example: they smack down every attempt to institute universal health care for their own fellow citizens, improve living conditions for the poor, etc., and then they rush to their bankbooks to help people in faraway nations.

I suspect it's because they feel these other people are more "deserving", whereas they've been taught that domestic poor are not.

Sure. Little brown unsaved people far away in poverty-stricken nations provide an opportunity to practice the virtue of charity.

Domestic poor - brown, little, or otherwise - are in the US of A, after all. They don't have an excuse.

[Stuart]

Weren't there cases of some "missionaries" outright refusing aid unless the recipients converted to their particular brand of religious nonsense in the 04 tsunami? I seem to remember something about it making the rounds on the news networks at the time.

I believe that took place in Aceh, Indonesia where the state government (Fundamentalist Muslim) refused to hand out aid to the Christian minority unless they converted to Islam. I have no personal knowledge of that though so I'm filing it under "unsubstantiated". What happened in Thailand was that some Muslims from Malaysia brought up supplies in trucks but tried to restrict distribution to Muslims. They changed their minds when the Thai Army presented a reasoned and logically-supported rebuttal of their position (the troops pointed M16s at them). As I said, I bet if we look around we can find equivalent cases; there's rumors that Tamils in Sri Lanka also hijacked relief supplies and tried to use them for sectarian purposes.

[General Zod]

I believe that took place in Aceh, Indonesia where the state government (Fundamentalist Muslim) refused to hand out aid to the Christian minority unless they converted to Islam. I have no personal knowledge of that though so I'm filing it under "unsubstantiated". What happened in Thailand was that some Muslims from Malaysia brought up supplies in trucks but tried to restrict distribution to Muslims. They changed their minds when the Thai Army presented a reasoned and logically-supported rebuttal of their position (the troops pointed M16s at them). As I said, I bet if we look around we can find equivalent cases; there's rumors that Tamils in Sri Lanka also hijacked relief supplies and tried to use them for sectarian purposes.

The one I'm thinking of involved Mormon missionaries, I think, but it's possible I'm getting my news items mixed up.

[MarshalPurnell]

Rebel groups and governments seizing control over relief supplies to reinforce their authority and punish their enemies is unfortunately common, without much regard to religion. Muslim warlords in Somalia did this to their own people, the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia played games with famine relief, North Korea and Zimbabwe still do, and a lot of other groups have certainly been accused of the same thing. While in a lot of cases religious identity serves as a marker of who is to be considered an enemy issues such as nationalism and ideology complicate assigning blame directly to religion, or at all in the case of Marxist regimes and movements.

Not to say that the highly religious practicing selective charity doesn't happen. I suspect it's rather likely and could account for most of what the poll finds, but that's a distinct phenomenon from the politicized distribution of aid.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

I've noticed that American Christians are ironically more willing to help people three thousand miles away than people in their own countries. The Southern Baptists are an excellent example: they smack down every attempt to institute universal health care for their own fellow citizens, improve living conditions for the poor, etc., and then they rush to their bankbooks to help people in faraway nations.

I suspect it's because they feel these other people are more "deserving", whereas they've been taught that domestic poor are not.

I've always thought it was because the poor in other countries (particularly 3rd world countries) provide an ample pool of individuals of would be more than happy to convert in exchange for food and medicine for their families. Whereas the majority of people who live in poverty in the U.S already identify themselves with some religious denomination and therefore, would do not need any kind of salvation.

[CarsonPalmer]

I've always thought it was because the poor in other countries (particularly 3rd world countries) provide an ample pool of individuals of would be more than happy to convert in exchange for food and medicine for their families. Whereas the majority of people who live in poverty in the U.S already identify themselves with some religious denomination and therefore, would do not need any kind of salvation.

Eh, I think its more along the lines that many of them are super-conservative hawks and flagwavers; their entire world view relies on the American poor being lazy and not really needing help. Otherwise, they'd be sending missionaries to the Catholics. I don't doubt that conversion is a motive, but I think for them, donating to help American poor would be an admission that the problem of poverty in America is much more severe than they believe it is.

[Darth Wong]

That mechanism makes perfect sense. When these people help others in faraway countries, they feel good about America: their nation helps the world. When they help people in America, they feel bad about America: it isn't the land of milk and honey after all. There's a strong undercurrent of denial in the way a lot of people view social problems in their own countries.

PS. The title of the article should say "Worldwide, highly obedient religious people more likely to help others than most religious people". That's the distinction you're truly drawing when you separate the group which does everything their preacher says to do (eg- showing up every single week).

[Plekhanov]

The 'highly religious' (by the definition used in the survey) people I know all 'donate money to a charity' every week - their church, they generally do some unpaid work for the church at least once a month as well, they also regularly go out trying to convert people which they obviously see as 'helping them'.

So they'd answer yes to all of the questions on the survey even though nothing they did had benefit to anyone viewed outside the prism of faith. Unless the survey excluded donations to the place of worship, time spent helping in the place of worship and evangelism, and there is no suggestion that it did, then it's pretty much worthless.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Oddly enough, this thread showed the exact same tendencies in connection with suicide bombers as the current article attempts to show for altruism. Since attendance at religious social functions is taken as the primary criterion for religiosity in both studies, they merely show that massive social indoctrination makes people more willing to sacrifice themselves for group goals, whether positive or negative in actual effects. Fundies, will of course, more likely make the distinction with regard to suicide bombings than to charitable efforts, in order to maintain their No True Scotsman view of their own religion.

What is also useful is that the correlation cuts across religions, thus undercutting the claims that each religion tends to make about being the unique or primary source of virtue. On the other hand, it tends to reinforce the mindless middle position that religiosity in general is good and it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe, etc.

[Ender]

I've noticed that American Christians are ironically more willing to help people three thousand miles away than people in their own countries. The Southern Baptists are an excellent example: they smack down every attempt to institute universal health care for their own fellow citizens, improve living conditions for the poor, etc., and then they rush to their bankbooks to help people in faraway nations.

I suspect it's because they feel these other people are more "deserving", whereas they've been taught that domestic poor are not.

Perhaps, but we shouldn't discount the fact that they are frankly in more need. Most of the poor in the 3rd world get by on one dollar a day or less, while in America very few are at a level of poverty that extreme.

[Junghalli]

That mechanism makes perfect sense. When these people help others in faraway countries, they feel good about America: their nation helps the world. When they help people in America, they feel bad about America: it isn't the land of milk and honey after all. There's a strong undercurrent of denial in the way a lot of people view social problems in their own countries.

I don't know about ultrareligious types but I've noticed lolbertarians seem a lot quicker to sneer at the American poor than the Third World poor, and I suspect that's pretty much the mechanism operating there. The simple existence of the American poor is an implicit rebuke of the idea that the Free Market will make everything great for everybody, so to maintain any credibility whatsoever for their Randtard ideologies they're more or less obligated to spin their poverty as being just, or at least inevitable, which of course usually means blaming the victims to the greatest extent possible. On the other hand, with Third World countries they can usually just handwave it away with "oh well, those places are run by evil tyrants, of course they're shitholes".

I suspect there's some overlap, at least here in the US, because ultrareligious types tend to be both Republican and rather tribalist, and the Republican party as we all know is more-or-less powered by an unholy alliance of Randroids and fundies.