Little research has investigated attributional biases to God for positive and negative personal events. Consistent with past work, we predicted that people who believe in God will attribute successes more to God than failures, particularly for highly religious people. We also predicted that believing that God is a part of the self would increase how much people felt God’s presence which would result in giving God more credit for successes. Our study (N = 133) was a two-factor, between-subject experimental design in which participants either won or lost a game and were asked to attribute the cause of this outcome to themselves, God, or other factors. Furthermore, participants either completed the game before or after responding to questions about their religious beliefs. Overall, there was support for our predictions. Our results have important implications for attribution research and the practical psychological experiences for religious people making attributions for their successes and failures.
AbramsD.Randsley de MouraG.TravaglinoG. A. (2013).
A double standard when group members behave badly: Transgression credit to ingroup leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
105, 799–815. doi:10.1037/a0033600
2.
AlexanderC. S.BeckerH. J. (1978).
The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly,
42(1), 93–104.
3.
AlloyL. B.AbramsonL. Y. (1988). Depressive realism: Four theoretical perspectives. In AlloyL. B. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in depression (pp. 223–265).
New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986).
The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
5.
BarterC.RenoldE. (1999).
The use of vignettes in qualitative research. Social Research Update,
25(9), 1–6.
6.
BenassiV. A.SweeneyP. D.DufourC. L. (1988).
Is there a relation between locus of control orientation and depression?Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
97, 357–367.
7.
BlaineB.CrockerJ. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases in reactions to positive and negative events: An integrative review. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.) Self-esteem (pp. 55–85). Boston, MA: Springer.
8.
BourhisR. Y.SachdevI.GagnonA. (1994). Intergroup research with the Tajfel matrices: Methodological notes. In ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (pp. 209–232).
Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
BulmanR. J.WortmanC. B. (1977).
Attributions of blame and coping in the “real world”: Severe accident victims react to their lot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
35(5), 351–363.
10.
CarlucciL.TommasiM.BalsamoM.FurnhamA.SagginoA. (2015).
Religious fundamentalism and psychological well-being: An Italian study. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
43(1), 23–33.
11.
DarleyJ. M.LatanéB. (1968).
Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
8, 377–383.
12.
DeinS.PargamentK. (2012).
On not praying for the return of an amputated limb: Conserving a relationship with God as the primary function of prayer. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic,
76(3), 235–259.
13.
DijksterhuisA.PrestonJ.WegnerD. M.AartsH. (2008).
Effects of subliminal priming of self and God on self-attribution of authorship for events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
44(1), 2–9.
14.
EisingaR.GrotenhuisM.PelzerB. (2013).
The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?International Journal of Public Health,
58(4), 637–642.
15.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.).
New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
16.
Groth-MarnatG.PegdenJ. (1998).
Personality correlates of paranormal belief: Locus of control and sensation seeking. Social Behavior and Personality,
26, 291–296.
17.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.).
New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
18.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relation.
New York, NY:
Wiley.
19.
HodgesS. D.SharpC. A.GibsonN. J.TipsordJ. M. (2013).
Nearer my God to thee: Self–God overlap and believers' relationships with God. Self and Identity,
12(3), 337–356.
20.
HoggM. A.AbramsD. (1999). Social identity and social cognition: Historical background and current trends. In AbramsD.HoggM. A. (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 1–25).
Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
21.
HoggM. A.WilliamsK. D. (2000).
From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
4, 81–97.
22.
HoustonD. M.AndreopoulouA. (2003).
Tests of both corollaries of social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis in real group settings. British Journal of Social Psychology,
42, 357–370. doi: 10.1348/014466603322438206
23.
HovemyrM. (1998).
The attribution of success and failure as related to different patterns of religious orientation.International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,
8(2), 107–124.
24.
IrwinH. J. (2000).
Belief in the paranormal and a sense of control over life. European Journal of Parapsychology,
15, 68–78.
25.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology.
New York, NY:
Holt.
26.
JohnsonB. T.EaglyA. H. (1989).
The effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
106, 290–314.
27.
KaneL.AshbaughA. R. (2017).
Simple and parallel mediation: A tutorial exploring anxiety sensitivity, sensation seeking, and gender. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology,
13, 148–165. doi:10.20982/tqmp.13.3.p148
28.
KernisM. H.WaschullS. B. (1995). The interactive roles of stability and level of self‐ esteem: Research and theory. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 93–141).
San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
29.
KrissP. H.LoewensteinG.WangX.WeberR. A. (2011).
Behind the veil of ignorance: Self-serving bias in climate change negotiations. Judgment and Decision Making,
6, 602–615.
30.
LangerE. J.RothJ. (1975).
Heads I win, tails it's chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32(6), 951–955.
31.
LiY. J.JohnsonK. A.CohenA. B.WilliamsM. J.KnowlesE. D.ChenZ. (2012).
Fundamental(ist) attribution error: Protestants are dispositionally focused. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102(2), 281–290.
32.
LupferM. B.TolliverD.JacksonM. (1996).
Explaining life-altering occurrences: A test of the 'God-of-the-gaps’ hypothesis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
35, 379–391.
33.
MarkusH. (1977).
Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
35, 63–78.
34.
MarkusH.WurfE. (1987).
The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
38, 299–337.
35.
MarmaroshC. L.CorazziniJ. G. (1997).
Putting the group in your pocket: Using collective identity to enhance personal and collective self-esteem. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
1, 65–74. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.1.1.65
36.
McGarryJ. J.NewberryB. H. (1981).
Beliefs in paranormal phenomena and locus of control: A field study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41, 725–736.
37.
MezulisA. H.AbramsonL. Y.HydeJ. S.HankinB. L. (2004).
Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin,
130(5), 711–747.
38.
MilgramS. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view.
New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
39.
MillerD. T.RossM. (1975).
Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?Psychological Bulletin,
82(2), 213–225.
40.
MorewedgeC. K. (2009).
Negativity bias in attribution of external agency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
138(4), 535–545.
41.
NorenzayanA.HansenI. G. (2006).
Belief in supernatural agents in the face of death. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32(2), 174–187.
42.
PeltzerK. (2002).
Paranormal beliefs and personality among black South African students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
30, 391–398.
43.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004).
SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,
36, 717–731.
44.
RiggioH. R.UhaltJ.MatthiesB. K. (2014).
Unanswered prayers: Religiosity and the God-serving bias. The Journal of Social Psychology,
154(6), 491–514.
45.
RitzemaR. J. (1979).
Attribution to supernatural causation: An important component of religious commitment?Journal of Psychology and Theology,
7(4), 286–293.
46.
RoeC. A.BellC. (2016).
Paranormal belief and perceived control over life events. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research,
80, 65–77.
47.
RosenblattP. C.MeyerC. J.KarisT. A. (1991).
Internal interactions with God. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
11, 85–97.
48.
RossM.SicolyF. (1979).
Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37(3), 322–336.
49.
SénémeaudC.MangeJ.SomatA. (2016).
When attribution of consistency depends on group value: Social valorization of preference for consistency in equivalent and asymmetric intergroup relations. International Review of Social Psychology,
29, 127–135. doi:10.5334/irsp.13
50.
SharpC. A.RentfrowP. J.GibsonN. J. (2017).
One God but three concepts: Complexity in Christians’ representations of God. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,
9(1), 95–105.
51.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002).
Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
7, 422–445.
52.
ShtulmanA.LindemanM. (2015).
Attributes of God: Conceptual foundations of a foundational belief. Cognitive Science,
40, 635–670. doi:10.1111/cogs.12253
53.
SpilkaB.SchmidtG. (1983).
General attribution theory for the psychology of religion: The influence of event-character on attributions to God. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
22(4), 326–339.
54.
SymonsC. S.JohnsonB. T. (1997).
The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
121, 371–394.
55.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology.
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
56.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47).
Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
57.
TaylorS. E.BrownJ. D. (1988).
Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin,
103(2), 193–210.
58.
TaylorS. E.FiskeS. T. (1975).
Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32(3), 439–445.
59.
ThelamourB.MwangiC. G.EzeoforI. (2019). We need to stick together for survival”: Black college students’ racial identity, same-ethnic friendships, and campus connectedness. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/dhe0000104
60.
VonkJ.PitzenJ. (2016).
Religiosity and the formulation of causal attributions. Thinking & Reasoning,
22(2), 119–149.
61.
WohlM. J.EnzleM. E. (2002).
The deployment of personal luck: Sympathetic magic and illusory control in games of pure chance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28(10), 1388–1397.
