Study finds that religious upbringing makes kids less generous

3 Views | 3 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by 94chem
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/human-flourishing/201909/does-religious-upbringing-promote-generosity-or-not?fbclid=IwAR2lgSntFmuX-8Fwx4DqOfBQO_mCa4H_7DTQ24-5pMSMa7FCeGXjvcTHq4s

Turns out, though, that the results (though widely reported) were caused by a coding error, and the opposite is actually true.


Quote:

In 2015, a paper by Jean Decety and co-authors reported that children who were brought up religiously were less generous. The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American. As it turned out, however, the paper by Decety was wrong. Another scholar, Azim Shariff, a leading expert on religion and pro-social behavior, was surprised by the results, as his own research and meta-analysis (combining evidence across studies from many authors) indicated that religious participation, in most settings, increased generosity. Shariff requested the data to try to understand more clearly what might explain the discrepancy.

Quote:

To Decety's credit, he released the data. And upon re-analysis, Shariff discovered that the results were due to a coding error. The data had been collected across numerous countries, e.g. United States, Canada, Turkey, etc. and the country information had been coded as "1, 2, 3" Although Decety's paper had reported that they had controlled for country, they had accidentally not controlled for each country, but just treated it as a single continuous variable so that, for example "Canada" (coded as 2) was twice the "United States" (coded as 1). Regardless of what one might think about the relative merits and rankings of countries, this is obviously not the right way to analyze data. When it was correctly analyzed, using separate indicators for each country, Decety's "findings" disappeared. Shariff's re-analysis and correction was published in the same journal, Current Biology, in 2016. The media, however, did not follow along. While it covered extensively the initial incorrect results, only four media outlets picked up the correction.

In fact, Decety's paper has continued to be cited in media articles on religion. Just last month two such articles appeared (one on Buzzworthy and one on TruthTheory) citing Decety's paper that religious children were less generous. The paper's influence seems to continue even after it has been shown to be wrong.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That would be a pretty dubious claim when one knows the numbers of charitable giving of the US compared to other countries.

US is far more religious AND far more giving. I would love to see someone try to parse out that data and claim religious upbringing lowered giving.
7nine
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does tithing count?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
swimmerbabe11 said:

Does tithing count?
You have to read a little more than the subject of the OP to find out the study was erroneous.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear Kids, if you can't eyeball a scatter plot and at least tell whether the slope should be positive or negative without actually doing the linear regression, you should pick a different major. Either you aren't smart enough for math, or your discipline doesn't tend to generate actual interpretible results.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.