Study: Religious People More Likely to Lie for Personal Gain.

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Came across this interesting study:


Childs’ experiment featured 400 students drawn from introductory economics classes at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan. After providing basic biographical information, they were paired off and assigned to play the role of either “sender” or “receiver.”

Senders were informed that the pair would receive a total of two payments: $5 and $15 in some cases, $5 and $7 in others. They would receive one of the amounts, while the receiver collected the other.
They were then told to send a message to the receiver, who sat in a nearby room, informing him or her of which payoff was greater. The receiver would presumably then choose to take the more lucrative one, leaving the sender stuck with the lower amount. Unless, of course, he or she chose to fib.

So who lied for personal financial gain?

www.psmag.com...



We find that sex, age, grade point average, student debt, size of return, socioeconomic status, and average time spent in religious observation are not related to the decision to lie. A subject’s major of study, the marital status of their parents, whether or not they were raised by a single parent, religious importance and whether or not the subjects came to collect their pay were important explanatory variables.

www.sciencedirect.com...


Well most of the results makes sense to me, although it was a surprise to me that religious people are more likely to lie for financial gain. Even though I am atheist, I believe honesty to be one of the virtues praised in different religions and yet...

What the author thought about it:

• Those for whom religion was more important to their lives. “This is surprising,” Childs writes, as most religions “promote honesty as a virtue. It may be that students for whom religion was important feel separate from other students at this largely secular university,” and thus feel less compelled to be honest with them.



PS. Please don´t start call it generalisation. More likely does not mean all. Thank You.
edit on 23-10-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-10-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Heh. Does not suprise me one bit.

My Auntie and Uncle are the most religious people I know and they are such hypocritical, judgmental and discriminatory "Christians". They surely learn nothing from their time at church and bible studies...



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Many who are religious feel that they are entitled to more. These results do not surprise me at all. It is often the same with those who are very intelligent, they feel they deserve more than someone holding a less intellectual job.

Religion has little relationship to honesty I have found. Just because a person goes to church does not mean they are a good person. A lot of people use their membership in church for financial gain also. It is well known that people of an organization will give preference to others in their organization when making decisions of where to bet services, even if the services can be acquired at a more reasonable price by someone outside their organization. This I refer to as belonging to a group of a kind. Collective thinking becomes dominant.

People do not even realize that they are getting overcharged, they think they are getting a deal because of their relationship with the person. It is not religion that is causing this though, those who like to deceive others and gain wealth see this as an opportunity to hook extra customers. This by no means implies that there are not honest church goers in religion, it just means some take advantage of it. Another thing that happens is that the members of the kind get good deals and tell their friends that this person has reasonable and quality services but the good deal is only available to the members of the group. Others get overcharged thinking they have been sent on a good path. This is also not limited to religion, this happens everywhere. Religion is a big group though, it is more evident in that group.

I would have to say that the research is flawed though. The researchers need to be able to identify these deceivers in other ways. Their own interpretation of the evidence can be jumbled by their beliefs and they may be missing the point. We have been conditioned to stimulate consumerism, this is the main problem. People like to see people of their kind grow in wealth and will help to support them. People also have this screwed up belief that more expensive is better, that is not the case. Someone with a nice store will get more profit for a product than someone in a small store sometimes. But people see the nice environment as a sign of better products, which is often false.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
www.psmag.com...

Childs’ experiment featured 400 students drawn from introductory economics classes at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan. After providing basic biographical information, they were paired off and assigned to play the role of either “sender” or “receiver.”



It was role playing in a college classroom of 400 students.
So it was make believe and not real world.
The students knew it wasnt' real world.
Therefore, the statement that religious people lie more is unfounded.

If there was an investigation into adults outside of college ... and not in a make believe setting ... a survey of some kind ... that would be different. But I don't think the college make believe situation is reliable.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   

FlyersFan
It was role playing in a college classroom of 400 students.
So it was make believe and not real world.
Are you saying the money was not real?



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Lets be honest here (chuckle)

First off, the article clearly states that the 400 students used in the experiment were drawn from "introductory economics classes" (plural).

This was not one single class that did this experiment, but individual students pulled from many classes.

Also, this was not a pretend situation because the $5, $7, $15 amounts were the student's payment for the experiment. There is nothing in the article to indicate it was a "make believe" situation.

It was not just the religious that were more likely to lie to get a few extra bucks, but also business majors and students whose parents were divorced and this was just in this experiment. I wonder how many of the student pulled from intro economics were buisness majors... Cant think of many other majors that would be taking that class.

On top of all of this, the guy who ran the experiment did the same thing before and claimed that men were more likely to lie than women. The results were different this time, so that would indicate to me that this experiment is fundamentally flawed, or there is simply not enough data to make any kind of honest statement toward any group.

DC



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
well, when you believe in a god that will forgive your sins...
simply put:
if a person has a get out of jail free card, its hard to resist the temptation to use it...for gain of course



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
And we needed a "study" for this fact? Ever been around the religous? You dont need a study to realise this fact. Just go be around them for a period of time and you'll see it yourself. At times they can sling crap out of both pants legs...it's a truly amazing thing to behold. a Lieing Christian...say it aint so.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   


Even though I am atheist




Among those more likely to lie for financial gain were:

• Business majors. “It could be that these students are more prone to lying by nature or training,” Childs writes. “It could also be that individuals strongly motivated by financial returns, and therefore more likely to lie for a monetary payoff, are more likely to pursue an education in business.” (Previous research has found higher levels of academic cheating among business majors.)
www.psmag.com...
• Students whose parents were divorced. This is in line with expectations, in that past research has found children of divorce are more likely to engage in anti-social behavior. Perhaps the belief they’ve been cheated out of a happy childhood may lead them to feel cheating is OK.


I guess we only needed to know that Christians are liars, agenda much?
edit on 093131p://bWednesday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)
edit on 093131p://bWednesday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


I see we have another ignorant, poorly designed, limited usefulness, misleading, research study involving religion.

I wonder who/what keeps pushing these super flawed studies . . . and what their agenda is?

My responses on this thread apply here, too:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

to wit:



I read your referenced article.

IT IS A VERY FLAWED STUDY EXACTLY AS I NOTED

REGARDING

INTRINSIC VS EXTRINSIC.

IT IS FLAWED--REGARDLESS OF THE PROCLAIMED FINDINGS.

I don't have any trouble believing the findings as stated. They are quite plausible.

They simply CANNOT MEAN what seems to be the implications desired by the authors . . . and you . . .

BASED ON THAT research.

That's just a fact. The research does NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT

those persons classed as VERY RELIGIOUS are

AS A GROUP

RELIABLY PREDICTED

TO BE MORE DEPRESSED

THAN THOSE NOT VERY RELIGIOUS.

Such assertions are NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE

"VERY RELIGIOUS" IS A CONFABULATED MIXED VARIABLE

WHEREIN

THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTRINSIC VERY RELIGIOUS VS THE EXTRINSIC VERY RELIGIOUS.

THEREFORE,

The contaminating factors from the EXTRINSICALLY VERY RELIGIOUS CLEARLY TRASHES TO WHATEVER DEGREE

THE BENEFICIAL CORELATES OF THE INTRINSICALLY VERY RELIGIOUS.

Wishful thinking trying to make such studies into a wholesale trashing of the benefits of INTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY

IS SIMPLY INACCURATE, UNTRUE . . . . at some point, when faced with the contrary data . . . it may be disingenuous or even dishonest.

This is a 40 year old topic with me. I have no trouble with solid research and the accurate findings of solid research.

Much that goes for religiosity IS destructive.

THAT'S just NOT the WHOLE story.

This is NOT THAT difficult to understand. Sigh.



Links of solid studies outlining the critical and meaningful distinction between traits associated with INTRINSIC VS EXTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY:

from:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






www.zimbio.com...


Emphases added:




Modern I-E scales are set up so that I and E are thought of as separate constructs where individuals score along two separate dimensions (i.e., low E to high E and low I to high I). Research has identified many negative correlates of high E (e.g., narcissism, guilt, fear of death, aggression, etc.).

Current work in the psychology of religion is characterized by the assumption that measuring religiosity as a unitary construct produces misleading results. Instead, the field has been influenced by the separation of religiosity into E and I orientations. The practical implication is that most of what we think of as the negative correlates of religious belief have been supported for extrinsic religiosity but not intrinsic religiosity. It is also noteworthy that extrinsic religiosity is much more highly correlated with measures of religious fundamentalism than is intrinsic religiosity.




= = =

2.
Religion, Intrinsic-Extrinsic Orientation, and Depression

Vicky Genia, Dale G. Shaw
Review of Religious Research, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Mar., 1991), pp. 274-283


www.jstor.org...


= = =



9.
A Study of Religiosity and Psychological Well-Being among African Americans: Implications for Counseling and Psychotherapeutic Processes

Linda K. Colbert, Joseph L. Jefferson, Ralph Gallo, Ronnie Davis
Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Sep., 2009), pp. 278-289



www.jstor.org...




= = =


A Comparison of Religious Orientation and Health Between Whites and Hispanics

Ray M. Merrill, Patrick Steffen, Bradley D. Hunter
Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 51, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 1261-1277


www.jstor.org...





Vol. 51, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 1261-1277
(article consists of 17 pages)
Published by: Springer
DOI: 10.2307/23352782
Stable URL: www.jstor.org...
Abstract

The study of religious orientation thus far has neglected the influence of race/ethnicity as well as all four religious orientations (intrinsic, extrinsic, pro-religious and nonreligious) in explaining differences in both physical and psychological health. A representative sample of 250 Hispanics and 236 non-Hispanic Whites in Utah was drawn and analysed for differences in health (self-rated health, life satisfaction, exercise) according to race/ethnicity, religious orientation and religious attendance. Responses to the Religious Orientation Scale differed significantly by race/ethnicity, indicating that future studies of religious orientation should take cultural context into account. For both Whites and Hispanics, pro-religious individuals reported the highest life satisfaction scores, which highlight the utility of employing the fourfold religious orientation typology.


= = =


24.
God Help Me (II): The Relationship of Religious Orientations to Religious Coping with Negative Life Events

Kenneth I. Pargament, Hannah Olsen, Barbara Reilly, Kathryn Falgout, David S. Ensing, Kimberly Van Haitsma
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 504-513



www.jstor.org...



= = =

INTRINSIC-EXTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY

www.hirr.hartsem.edu...




Consistent with Allport's view of mature religiosity, extrinsic but not intrinsic religiosity typically correlates with more dysfunctional psychological constructs. Many psychometric critiques and modifications of the scales have been published. The only consensus is that extrinsic and intrinsic must be treated as independent scales, not as a continuum as initially conceived. Major critical reviews have emphasized the lack of theory-driven research, the inadequacies of these scales to operationalize fully Allport's theory, and the failure to clearly define religious orientations in value-neutral terms. The psychometric limitations of the original scales repeatedly have been challenged. An age-universal version of these scales is available. It is a matter of contention whether the scales are best used as independent dimensions or the basis for constructing typologies. Studies using these scales and theoretically linked alternatives continue to provide the major database for the contemporary empirical psychology of religion.

—Ralph W. Hood, Jr .




www.hirr.hartsem.edu...

edit on 23/10/2013 by BO XIAN because: still trying to get links to work



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Managed to get the quotes in the above post to work . . . I think. So no need of this post.
edit on 23/10/2013 by BO XIAN because: corrected links in post before this one



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


It would be somewhat tolerable and at least fitting

IF THEIR AGENDA HAD A SHRED OF FACTUAL, REALITY BASED TRUTH to it.

As I've documented, such research--without making a clear distinction in the research design between

INTRINSIC VS EXTRINSIC

is as bad or worse than the stuff they are accusing Christians of.


It's an example of hypocrisy at its worst.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I hope you learn to discriminate even better that your above average between decent research into religiosity and this pile of horse feathers type of research that does NOT distinguish between

INTRINSIC {HEALTHY} RELIGIOSITY VS EXTRINSIC {DYSFUNCTIONAL, DISHONEST} RELIGIOSITY.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


They sound very much like prime examples of

EXTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY

which is 180 degrees opposite

INTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY.


It could be life saving for you to learn about the differences.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 



UNINFORMED

UNAWARE

. . . FUNCTIONALLY IGNORANT . . .

research like this

1. is a disservice to solid research;

2. is misleading and conflating of the facts and realities concerned;

3. deludes too many readers into thinking things that are GROSSLY UNTRUE;

4. provides hollow, empty, farcical, UNTRUE, assertions of negativity for folks with a dark and hideous agenda to further mislead and propagandize the sheeple.


Certainly the globalist oligarchy has a fierce agenda to trash Christianity and institute a literal satan worshiping ONE WORLD MANDATORY RELIGION forced on everyone. Such ignorant research propagandizing only furthers that hideous goal.
.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

BO XIAN
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I hope you learn to discriminate even better that your above average between decent research into religiosity and this pile of horse feathers type of research that does NOT distinguish between

INTRINSIC {HEALTHY} RELIGIOSITY VS EXTRINSIC {DYSFUNCTIONAL, DISHONEST} RELIGIOSITY.





posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Please let me try again. LOL

I hope you learn to discriminate even better . . . than your well above average intellect typically displays on such issues . . . may you discriminate even better between decent research into religiosity and this pile of horse feathers type of research that does NOT distinguish between

INTRINSIC {HEALTHY} RELIGIOSITY VS EXTRINSIC {DYSFUNCTIONAL, DISHONEST} RELIGIOSITY.

I don't know if I dropped some bytes in my noggin or my typin.'





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join