Moralistic and local god beliefs and the extent of prosocial preferences on Tanna Island, Vanuatu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The co-existence of Christian and indigenous “Kastom” belief systems on Tanna Island, Vanuatu provides a rare opportunity to explore the relationship between cooperation and religion. Here, we use data on religious beliefs and practices, religious priming, and four versions of a dictator game at two sites—one predominantly Christian and one predominantly Kastom—to test a suite of hypotheses linking prosocial behavior to beliefs about and commitment to both a powerful moralistic god and a less morally concerned local supernatural force. We found belief that the moralistic god was more punitive did not predict increased giving towards co-religionists but did predict giving more to a religious outgroup member over a co-religionist. Belief that the moralistic god was more rewarding predicted less giving towards a distant coreligionist or outgroup member. Religious commitment predicted giving to a distant coreligionist over someone from one's own village. We did not find any effect of beliefs about and commitment to less morally-concerned local supernatural forces on giving. We also did not find the predicted effects of religious priming on giving. These findings suggest a more complex relationship between religious beliefs and prosocial behavior than current theory can accommodate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".