An exchange model of religion implies that if a secular entity such as government provides what people need, they will be less likely to seek help from supernatural entities. Controlling for quality of life and income inequality (Gini), we found that better government services were related to lower religiosity among countries (Study 1) and states in the United States (Study 2). Study 2 also showed that during 2008-2013, better government services in a specific year predicted lower religiosity 1 to 2 years later. In both studies, a combination of better government services and quality of life was related to a particularly low level of religiosity. Among countries, government services moderated the relation between religiosity and two measures of well-being, such that religiosity was related to greater well-being only when government services were low. We discuss the relation between the exchange model and other theoretical approaches to religion.
AllportG. W.RossJ. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. doi:10.1037/h0021212
2.
AtranS. (2002). In Gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
BarrettJ. L. (2004). Why would anyone believe in God?Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
5.
BatsonD. C.SchoenradeP.VentisW. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
BaumardN.BoyerP. (2013). Explaining moral religions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 272-280. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.003
7.
BeringJ. (2011). The belief instinct: The psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
8.
BloomP. (2007). Religion is natural. Developmental Science, 10, 147-151. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00577.x
9.
BoyerP. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
10.
BrownS. L.NesseR. M.HouseJ. S.UtzR. L. (2004). Religion and emotional compensation: Results from a prospective study of widowhood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1165-1174. doi:10.1177/0146167204263752
11.
BrownellC. A.RamaniG. B.ZerwasS. (2006). Becoming a social partner with peers: Cooperation and social understanding in one- and two-year-olds. Child Development, 77, 803-821.
12.
CantrilH. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
13.
CohenA. B.HallD. E.KoenigH. G.MeadorK. G. (2005). Social versus individual motivation: Implications for normative definitions of religious orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 48-61.
14.
DienerE. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. The American Psychologist, 55, 34-43. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.34
15.
DienerE.OishiS.LucasR. E. (2015). National accounts of subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 70, 234-242. doi:10.1037/a0038899
16.
DienerE.TayL.MyersD. G. (2011). The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1278-1290. doi:10.1037/a0024402
17.
DonahueM. J. (1985a). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: The empirical research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24, 418-423. doi:10.2307/1385995
18.
DonahueM. J. (1985b). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.400
19.
DurkheimE. (1912). The elementary forms of the religious life. London, England: Allen & Unwin.
20.
EdmondsonD.ParkC. L.ChaudoirS. R.WortmannJ. H. (2008). Death without God religious struggle, death concerns, and depression in the terminally ill. Psychological Science, 19, 754-758. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02152.x
21.
EpleyN.AkalisS.WaytzA.CacioppoJ. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114-120.
22.
ExlineJ. J.ParkC. L.SmythJ. M.CareyM. P. (2011). Anger toward God: Social-cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 129-148. doi:10.1037/a0021716
23.
FisherA. R. (2017). A review and conceptual model of the research on doubt, disaffiliation, and related religious changes. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9, 358-367. doi:10.1037/rel0000088
24.
FrithU.FrithC. D. (2003). Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 358, 459-473. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1218
GervaisW. M.NorenzayanA. (2012). Reminders of secular authority reduce believers’ distrust of atheists. Psychological Science, 23, 483-491. doi:10.1177/0956797611429711
27.
GervaisW. M.ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1189-1206. doi:10.1037/a0025882
28.
GranqvistP.MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (2010). Religion as attachment: Normative processes and individual differences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 49-59. doi:10.1177/1088868309348618
29.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2010). Blaming God for our pain: Human suffering and the divine mind. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 7-16. doi:10.1177/1088868309350299
30.
HamlinJ. K.WynnK.BloomP. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450, 557-559.
31.
JongJ.HalberstadtJ.BluemkeM. (2012). Foxhole atheism, revisited: The effects of mortality salience on explicit and implicit religious belief. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 983-989. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.005
32.
KayA. C.GaucherD.McGregorI.NashK. (2010). Religious belief as compensatory control. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 37-48. doi:10.1177/1088868309353750
33.
KayA. C.GaucherD.NapierJ. L.CallanM. J.LaurinK. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18-35. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18
34.
KayA. C.ShepherdS.BlatzC. W.ChuaS. N.GalinskyA. D. (2010). For god (or) country: The hydraulic relation between government instability and belief in religious sources of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 725-739. doi:10.1037/a0021140
35.
KelemenD. (2004). Are children “intuitive theists”? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science, 15, 295-301.
36.
KirkpatrickL. A.HoodR. W. (1990). Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion?Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 442-462. doi:10.2307/1387311
37.
KishL. (1949). A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, 380-387.
38.
KooleS. L.McCulloughM. E.KuhlJ.RoelofsmaP. H. M. P. (2010). Why religion’s burdens are light: From religiosity to implicit self-regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 95-107. doi:10.1177/1088868309351109
39.
LaurinK.ShariffA. F.HenrichJ.KayA. C. (2012). Outsourcing punishment to god: Beliefs in divine control reduce earthly punishment. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 279, 3272-3281. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0615
40.
McClearyR. M.BarroR. J. (2006). Religion and economy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 49-72.
41.
McCulloughM. E.WilloughbyB. L. B. (2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self-control. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 69-93.
42.
McGregorI.HajiR.NashK. A.TeperR. (2008). Religious zeal and the uncertain self. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 183-188. doi:10.1080/01973530802209251
43.
NorenzayanA.GervaisW. M. (2015). Secular rule of law erodes believers’ political intolerance of atheists. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 5, 3-14. doi:10.1080/2153599X.2013.794749
44.
NorenzayanA.HansenI. (2006). Belief in supernatural agents in the face of death. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 174-187. doi:10.1177/0146167205280251
45.
NorenzayanA.HenrichJ.SlingerlandE. (2013). Religiosity prosociality: A synthesis. In RicersonP.ChristiansenM. (Eds.), Cultural evolution (pp. 365-378). Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
46.
NorenzayanA.ShariffA. F.GervaisW. M.WillardA. K.McNamaraR. A.SlingerlandE.HenrichJ. (2016). The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e1. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14001356
47.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48.
PargamentK. I. (1992). Of means and ends: Religion and the search for significance. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 201-229. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0204_1
49.
PargamentK. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
50.
PargamentK. I.KoenigH. G.TarakeshwarN.HahnJ. (2001). Religious struggle as a predictor of mortality among medically ill elderly patients: A 2-year longitudinal study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 161, 1881-1885. doi:10.1001/archinte.161.15.1881
51.
PaulG. (2009). The chronic dependence of popular religiosity upon dysfunctional psychosociological conditions. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 398-441. doi:10.1177/147470490900700305
52.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
53.
ReesT. J. (2009). Is personal insecurity a cause of cross-national differences in the intensity of religious belief?Journal of Religion & Society, 11, 1-24.
54.
RutjensB. T.van der PligtJ.van HarreveldF. (2010). Deus or Darwin: Randomness and belief in theories about the origin of life. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1078-1080. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.009
55.
SackettP. R.YangH. (2000). Correction for range restriction: An expanded typology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 112-118. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.112
56.
SchiemanS. (2010). Socioeconomic status and beliefs about God’s influence in everyday life. Sociology of Religion, 71, 25-51. doi:10.1093/socrel/srq004
57.
SedikidesC. (2010). Why does religiosity persist?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 3-6. doi:10.1177/1088868309352323
58.
SedikidesC.GebauerJ. E. (2010). Religiosity as self-enhancement: A meta-analysis of the relation between socially desirable responding and religiosity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 17-36. doi:10.1177/1088868309351002
59.
ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (2007). God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science, 18, 803-809. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01983.x
60.
ShariffA. F.WillardA. K.AndersenT.NorenzayanA. (2016). Religious priming: A meta-analysis with a focus on prosociality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 27-48. doi:10.1177/1088868314568811
61.
SibleyC. G.BulbuliaJ. (2012). Faith after an earthquake: A longitudinal study of religion and perceived health before and after the 2011 Christchurch New Zealand earthquake. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e49648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049648
62.
TevinoK.PargamentK. I. (2007). Religious coping with terrorism and natural disaster. Southern Medical Journal, 100, 946-947.
63.
VailK. E.IIIArndtJ. A.AbdollahiA. (2012). Exploring the existential function of religion and supernatural agent beliefs among Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and Agnostics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1288-1300. doi:10.1177/0146167212449361
64.
VailK. E.IIIRothchildZ. K.WeiseD. R.SolomonS.PyszczynskiT.GreenbergJ. (2010). A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 84-94. doi:10.1177/1088868309351165
65.
WieselE. (1960). Night. New York, NY: Hill & Wang.
66.
WillardA. K.NorenzayanA. (2013). Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose. Cognition, 129, 379-391. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.016
67.
ZuckermanM.LiC.DienerE. F. (2017). Societal conditions and the gender difference in well-being: Testing a 3-stage model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 329-336. doi: 10.1177/0146167216684133
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
