Letter

Social support networks and religiosity in rural South India

  • Nature Human Behaviour 1, Article number: 0057 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0057
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

In recent years, scientists based in a variety of disciplines have attempted to explain the evolutionary origins of religious belief and practice1,​2,​3. Although they have focused on different aspects of the religious system, they consistently highlight the strong association between religiosity and prosocial behaviour (acts that benefit others). This association has been central to the argument that religious prosociality played an important role in the sociocultural florescence of our species4,​5,​6,​7. But empirical work evaluating the link between religion and prosociality has been somewhat mixed8,​9,​10,​11. Here, I use detailed, ethnographically informed data chronicling the religious practice and social support networks of the residents of two villages in South India to evaluate whether those who evince greater religiosity are more likely to undertake acts that benefit others. Exponential random graph models reveal that individuals who worship regularly and carry out greater and costlier public religious acts are more likely to provide others with support of all types. Those individuals are themselves better able to call on support, having a greater likelihood of reciprocal relationships. These results suggest that religious practice is taken as a signal of trustworthiness, generosity and prosociality, leading village residents to establish supportive, often reciprocal relationships with such individuals.

  • Subscribe to Nature Human Behaviour for full access:

    $99

    Subscribe

  • Purchase article full text and PDF:

    $32

    Buy now

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. (eds) The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, and Critiques (Collins Foundation, 2008).

  2. 2.

    Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).

  3. 3.

    God Is Watching You: How the Fear of God Makes Us Human (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

  4. 4.

    Why are humans religious? An inquiry into the evolutionary origins of religion. Curr. Theol. Mission 28, 357–368 (2001).

  5. 5.

    et al. The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behav. Brain Sci. 39, e1 (2016).

  6. 6.

    et al. Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality. Nature 530, 327–330 (2016).

  7. 7.

    Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).

  8. 8.

    Religion, morality, evolution. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 179–199 (2012).

  9. 9.

    Does religious belief promote prosociality? A critical examination. Psychol. Bull. 138, 876–906 (2012).

  10. 10.

    The experimental economics of religion. J. Econ. Surv. 27, 813–845 (2013).

  11. 11.

    Religious attitudes and prosocial behavior: a systematic review of published research. Relig. Brain Behav. 6, 169–184 (2016).

  12. 12.

    & The good of wrath: supernatural punishment and the evolution of cooperation. Polit. Theol. 5, 159 (2007).

  13. 13.

    et al. Broad supernatural punishment but not moralizing high gods precede the evolution of political complexity in Austronesia. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 282, 20142556 (2015).

  14. 14.

    Why strict churches are strong. Am. J. Sociol. 99, 1180–1211 (1994).

  15. 15.

    & Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: the evolution of religious behavior. Evol. Anthropol. 12, 264–274 (2003).

  16. 16.

    Religious costs as adaptations that signal altruistic intention. Evol. Cogn. 10, 19–38 (2004).

  17. 17.

    The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30, 244–260 (2009).

  18. 18.

    The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Free Press, 1995).

  19. 19.

    & The ties that bind us: ritual, fusion, and identification. Curr. Anthropol. 55, 674–695 (2014).

  20. 20.

    Does religion promote trust? The role of signaling, reputation, and punishment. Interdiscipl. J. Res. Relig. 1, 1–30 (2005).

  21. 21.

    , & The radius of trust: religion, social embeddedness and trust in strangers. Soc. Forces 86, 23–46 (2007).

  22. 22.

    , & Trust and religion: experimental evidence from rural Bangladesh. Economica 76, 462–485 (2009).

  23. 23.

    & Religion and trust: an experimental study. J. Econ. Psychol. 29, 832–848 (2008).

  24. 24.

    Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society (Univ. Chicago Press, 2003).

  25. 25.

    , & Did the devil make them do it? The effects of religion in public goods and trust games. Kyklos 63, 163–175 (2010).

  26. 26.

    , , & Religious priming: a meta-analysis with a focus on prosociality. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 20, 27–48 (2016).

  27. 27.

    & Religious ritual and cooperation: testing for a relationship on Israeli religious and secular kibbutzim. Curr. Anthropol. 44, 713–722 (2003).

  28. 28.

    & Cooperation and the in-group–out-group bias: a field test on Israeli kibbutz members & city residents. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 60, 147–163 (2006).

  29. 29.

    Costly signaling, ritual and cooperation: evidence from Candomblé, an Afro-Brazilian religion. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 346–356 (2012).

  30. 30.

    et al. Extreme rituals promote prosociality. Psychol. Sci. 24, 1602–1605 (2013).

  31. 31.

    , , , & Costly signaling increases trust, even across religious affiliations. Psychol. Sci. 26, 1368–1376 (2015).

  32. 32.

    , , , & Christian religious badges instill trust in Christian and non-Christian perceivers. Psychol. Relig. Spiritual. 8, 149–163 (2016).

  33. 33.

    & Ritual behavior and trust in the Tyva Republic. Curr. Anthropol. 54, 381–388 (2013).

  34. 34.

    & Do religious contexts elicit more trust and altruism? An experiment on Facebook. Preprint at 1–30 (2010).

  35. 35.

    , & Belonging to the same religion enhances the opinion of others’ kindness and morality. J. Soc. Evol. Cult. Psychol. 3, 281–289 (2009).

  36. 36.

    Discerning devotion: testing the signaling theory of religion. Evol. Hum. Behav. 38, 82–91 (2017).

  37. 37.

    , & The causes of demographic change in rural South India: a micro approach. Popul. Dev. Rev. 8, 689–727 (1982).

  38. 38.

    Dowry inflation in rural India: a statistical investigation. Popul. Stud. 47, 283–293 (1993).

  39. 39.

    & Social Mobility in Kerala: Modernity and Identity in Conflict (Pluto, 2000).

  40. 40.

    Testing three evolutionary models of the demographic transition: patterns of fertility and age at marriage in urban South India. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 21, 501–511 (2009).

  41. 41.

    Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).

  42. 42.

    & Conceptualizing spirit possession: ethnographic and experimental evidence. Ethos 36, 246–267 (2008).

  43. 43.

    Siva and Her Sisters: Gender Caste and Class in Rural South India (Westview, 1995).

  44. 44.

    & Altruism and indirect reciprocity: the interaction of person and situation in prosocial behavior. Soc. Psychol. Quart. 71, 37–52 (2008).

  45. 45.

    & Prosocial signaling and cooperation among Martu hunters. Evol. Hum. Behav. 36, 389–397 (2015).

  46. 46.

    The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (Free Press, 1954).

  47. 47.

    Gratitude as a social mode in South India. Ethos 13, 236–245 (1985).

  48. 48.

    The ties that torture: simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Res. Sociol. Organ. 16, 183–210 (1999).

  49. 49.

    , , & Social connectedness is associated with fibrinogen level in a human social network. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20160958 (2016).

  50. 50.

    Public Faces, Private Voices (Univ. California Press, 1994).

  51. 51.

    , & in Whom Can We trust? How Groups, Networks, and Institutions Make Trust Possible (eds Cook, K. S., Levi, M. & Hardin, R.) 65–90 (Russell Sage Foundation, 2009).

  52. 52.

    & Religion, social networks, and life satisfaction. Am. Soc. Rev. 75, 914–933 (2010).

  53. 53.

    & Religion as bridging or bonding social capital race, religion, and cross-racial interaction for college students. Sociol. Educ. 88, 20–37 (2015).

  54. 54.

    Network data and measurement. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 16, 435–463 (1990).

  55. 55.

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014).

  56. 56.

    & The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJ. Complex Syst. 1695 (2006).

  57. 57.

    , , , & Statnet: software tools for the representation, visualization, analysis and simulation of network data. J. Stat. Softw. 24, 1548–7660 (2008).

  58. 58.

    , , & New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociol. Methodol. 36, 99–153 (2006).

  59. 59.

    Cooperation dynamics in a multiethnic society: a case study from Tamil Nadu. Curr. Anthropol. 53, 642–649 (2012).

  60. 60.

    , , & An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc. Networks 29, 173–191 (2007).

  61. 61.

    , & (eds) Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  62. 62.

    & Inference in curved exponential family models for networks. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 15, 565–583 (2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for the hospitality of the villagers of Teṉpaṭṭi and Aḻakāpuram, the support of faculty and students from the Folklore Department at Madurai Kamaraj University, and the suggestions of R. Bird, R. Sosis, J. Holland Jones, T. Luhrmann, S. Thiranagama, E. Ready, S. Bowles, L. Fortunato and participants in the IRES graduate student workshop. Fieldwork was funded by a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (BCS-1121326), a Fulbright–Nehru Student Researcher Award, the Stanford Center for South Asia, and Stanford University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501, USA

    • Eleanor A. Power

Authors

  1. Search for Eleanor A. Power in:

Contributions

E.A.P. designed the research, collected the data, analysed the data and wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleanor A. Power.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figures, Supplementary Tables and Supplementary References.