Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Human Simulation: Perspectives, Insights, and Applications pp 157–178Cite as

Religion, Empathy, and Cooperation: A Case Study in the Promises and Challenges of Modeling and Simulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion ((NASR,volume 7))

Abstract

The Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) is developing a sophisticated naturalistic account of religion, grounded in empirical research. However, there are limitations to establishing an empirical basis for theories about religion’s role in human evolution. Computer modeling and simulation offers a way to address this experimental constraint. A case study in this approach was conducted on a key theory within CSR that recently has come under serious challenge: the Supernatural Punishment Hypothesis, which posits religion facilitated the shift from small, homogeneous social units to large, complex societies. It has been proposed that incorporating empathy as a proximate mechanism for cooperation into the theory may address these challenges. To test this, we developed a computer simulation that runs iterated cooperation games. To assess the impact of empathy on cooperation, we developed an agent-based model with a baseline for empathetic concern, derived from neuroscientific literature on empathy and cooperation, that could be modulated by signals of religious identity. The results of this simulation may provide important data for an account of religion’s role in human evolution. Results and their implications, for both the theory and the modeling and simulation approach, are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Purzycki (2011), and Purzycki and Arakchaa (2013), for supporting evidence from a contemporary case study.

  2. 2.

    A recent study of political complexity and belief in supernatural punishment shows that a broad spectrum of supernatural punishing models (BSP) can contribute to the emergence of complex societies, without belief in morally-concerned gods, Watts et al. 2015.

  3. 3.

    This connects REACH with the rich body of research on religion and signaling theory, see. e.g. Irons (2001); Bulbulia and Sosis (2011); Shaver and Bulbulia (2016).

  4. 4.

    There is also evidence that participation in synchronous movement, which is characteristic of many religious practices and has been linked to increased prosociality, also activates our empathy system (Behrends et al. 2012; Cohen et al. 2014; Reddish et al. 2014; Valdesolo and DeSteno 2011).

  5. 5.

    The payoff matrix for the game is included in the table below. For those unfamiliar, this means that if both agents cooperate, both agents get a payoff of 3. If both agents defect, they get a payoff of 1. If agent 1 cooperates and agent 2 defects, then agent 1 receives 0 and agent 2 receives 5. If agent 1 defects and agent 2 cooperates, then agent 1 receives 5 and agent 2 receives 0. As such, it may be noted that the game inherently favors defection (see Worden and Levin 2007 for a discussion of theoretical repercussions).

      

    Agent 2

     

    Strategy

    C

    D

    Agent 1

    C

    (3,3)

    (0,5)

     

    D

    (5,0)

    (1,1)

  6. 6.

    The punishment in this scenario is denying the defector the potential benefits of a cooperative interaction. The “punishing” agent is not required to take any positive action against the defector, but simply follows the game theoretic strategy of minimizing risk by not cooperating with an unreliable partner. The agent, therefore, does not incur any specific costs for this form of punishment, unlike typical cases of punishment, and so the problem of altruistic punishment is avoided (see Fehr and Gachter 2002).

References

  • Alexander, R.D. 1987. The biology of moral systems. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, Q., and P. Bourrat. 2011. Beliefs about God, the afterlife and morality support the role of supernatural policing in human cooperation. Evolution and Human Behavior 32: 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenanti, A., A. Sirigu, and S. Aglioti. 2010. Racial bias reduces empathic sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain. Current Biology 20: 1018–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., and W.D. Hamilton. 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211: 1390–1396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balliet, D., and J. Wu. 2014. Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 140 (6): 1556–1581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartal, I.B., J. Decety, and P. Mason. 2011. Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science 334 (6061): 1427–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumard, N., and P. Boyer. 2013. Explaining moral religions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17: 272–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Empirical problems with the notion of “Big Gods” and of prosociality in large societies. Religion, Brain & Behavior 5 (4): 279–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrends, A., S. Muller, and I. Dziobek. 2012. Moving in and out of synchrony: A concept for a new intervention fostering empathy through interactional movement and dance. The Arts in Psychotherapy 39: 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bering, J., and D. Johnson. 2005. “O Lord … you perceive my thoughts from afar”: Recursiveness and the evolution of supernatural agency. Journal of Cognition and Culture 5: 118–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneau, E., and R. Saxe. 2010. Attitudes towards the outgroup are predicted by activity in the precuneus in Arabs and Israelis. NeuroImage 52: 1704–1711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulbulia, J., and R. Sosis. 2011. Signalling theory and the evolution of religious cooperation. Religion 41 (3): 363–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, B., A. Martens, and E. Faucher. 2010. Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review 14: 155–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiao, J.Y., and V.A. Mathur. 2010. Intergroup empathy: How does race affect empathic neural responses? Current Biology 20: 478–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cikara, M., and J. Van Bavel. 2014. The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (3): 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cikara, M., M. Botvinick, and S. Fiske. 2011. Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science 22 (3): 306–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E., R. Mundry, and S. Kirshner. 2014. Religion, synchrony, and cooperation. Religion, Brain, and Behavior 4: 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vignemont, F., and T. Singer. 2006. The empathic brain: How, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Waal, F.B.M. 2012. The antiquity of empathy. Science 336: 874–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decety, J. 2015. The neural pathways, development and functions of empathy. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 3: 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decety, J., and J. Cowell. 2014. The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18 (7): 337–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., and U. Fischbacher. 2003. The nature of human altruism. Nature 425: 785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., and S. Gachter. 2002. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415: 137–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S.T. 2000. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology 30: 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gore, R., C. Lemos, F.L. Shults, and W.J. Wildman. 2018. Forecasting changes in religiosity and existential security with an agent-based model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 21: 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., T. Pyszczynski, L.S. Solomon, A. Rosenblatt, M. Veeder, S. Kirkland, and D. Lyon. 1990. Evidence of terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 308–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutsell, J.N., and M. Inzlicht. 2012. Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: Neural evidence of an empathy gap. SCAN 7: 596–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W.D. 1964. Genetic evolution of social behavior, I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., and G. Northoff. 2008. Cultural-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: A transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9: 646–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, G., G. Silani, K. Preuschoff, C.D. Batson, and T. Singer. 2010. Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members’ suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron 68: 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, E., B. Bartholow, and J. Arndt. 2010. Death on the brain: Effects of mortality salience on the neural correlates of ingroup and outgroup categorization. SCAN 5: 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irons, W. 2001. Religion as a hard-to-fake sign of commitment. In Evolution and the capacity for commitment, ed. R. Nesse, 290–309. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. 2005. God’s punishment and public goods: A test of the supernatural punishment hypothesis in 186 world cultures. Human Nature 16: 410–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. God is watching you: How the fear of God makes us human. USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. The wrath of the academics: Criticisms, applications, and extensions of the supernatural punishment hypothesis. Religion, Brain & Behavior 8 (3): 320–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/215399X.2017.1302986.

  • Johnson, D., and O. Kruger. 2004. The good of wrath: Supernatural punishment and the evolution of cooperation. Political Theology 5: 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laird, Robert A. 2011. Green-beard effect predicts the evolution of traitorousness in the two-tag Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology 288: 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.07.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J.E. 2017. Strengthening the supernatural punishment hypothesis through computer modeling. Religion, Brain & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2017.1302977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenfesty, H., and T. Fikes. 2017. From anxiety to neighborliness: Neural and cultural adaptations in the evolution of religious prosociality. Religion, Brain & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2017.1302982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macy, Michael W., and John Skvoretz. 1998. The evolution of trust and cooperation between strangers: A computational model. American Sociological Review 63 (5): 638–660. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, N., M. Martinez, N. Gutierrez, G. Diesendruck, M. Banaji, and L. Santos. 2011. The evolution of intergroup bias: Perceptions and attitudes in rhesus macaques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100 (3): 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marino, L., R.C. Connor, R.E. Fordyce, L.M. Herman, P.R. Hof, L. Lefebvre, D. Lusseau, B. McCowan, E.A. Nimchinsky, A.A. Pack, L. Rendell, J.S. Reidenberg, D. Reiss, M.D. Uhen, E. Van der Gucht, and H. Whitehead. 2007. Cetaceans have complex brains for complex cognition. PLoS Biology 5: e139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, P., and J.-P. Delahaye. 2017. New winning strategies for the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. JASSS 20 (4). https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3517.

  • McKay, R., C. Efferson, H. Whitehouse, and E. Fehr. 2011. Wrath of God: Religious primes and punishment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278: 1858–1863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ments, Laila, Peter Roelofsma, and Jan Treur. 2018. Modelling the effect of religion on human empathy based on an adaptive temporal–causal network model. Computational Social Networks 5 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40649-017-0049-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M., and J. Schloss. 2011. Evolutionary accounts of belief in supernatural punishment: A critical review. Religion, Brain & Behavior 1 (1): 46–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M.A. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314: 1560–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrzyk, Mateusz P., and M. Takac. 2017. Cooperation via intimidation: An emergent system of mutual threats can maintain social order. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 20 (4): 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, E.A., K.J. O’Connor, W.A. Cunningham, E.S. Funayama, C.J. Gatenby, J.C. Gore, and M.R. Banaji. 2000. Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12: 729–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puga-Gonzalez, I., M. Butovskaya, B. Thierry, C.K. Hemelrijk, and S.C. Pratt. 2014. Empathy versus parsimony in understanding post-conflict affiliation in monkeys: Model and empirical data. PLoS One 9 (3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purzycki, B. 2011. Tyvan cher eezi and the socioecological constraints of supernatural agents’ minds. Religion, Brain & Behavior 1 (1): 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purzycki, B., and T. Arakchaa. 2013. Ritual behavior and trust in the Tyva Republic. Current Anthropology 54 (3): 381–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddish, P., J. Bulbulia, and R. Fisher. 2014. Does synchrony promote generalized prosociality? Religion, Brain and Behavior 4: 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richeson, J.A., A.A. Baird, H.L. Gordon, T.F. Heatherton, C.L. Wyland, S. Trawalter, and J.N. Shelton. 2003. An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: 1323–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossano, M. 2009. The African interregnum: The “where,” “when,” and “why” of the evolution of religion. In The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior, The frontiers collection, ed. E. Voland and W. Schiefenhovel, 127–141. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shariff, A., and A. Norenzayan. 2007. God is watching you: Priming god concepts increase prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science 18: 803–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Mean gods make good people: Different views of god predict cheating behavior. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 21 (2): 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, J.H., and J.A. Bulbulia. 2016. Signaling theory and religion. In Mental Religion, 101–117. Farmington Hills: Macmillan Interdisciplinary Handbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shults, F.L. 2014. Theology after the birth of God: Atheist conceptions in cognition and culture. Radical theologies. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Practicing safe sects: Religious reproduction in scientific and philosophical perspective. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shults, F.L., J.E. Lane, S. Diallo, C. Lynch, W.J. Wildman, and R. Gore. 2018. Modeling terror management theory: Computer simulations of the impact of mortality salience on religiosity. Religion, Brain & Behavior 8 (1): 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, T. 2006. The neuronal basis of empathy and fairness. In Empathy and fairness: Novartis foundation symposium, ed. G. Bock and J. Goode, vol. 278, 20–40. Novartis Foundation.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, T., and O. Klimecki. 2014. Empathy and compassion. Current Biology 24 (18): 875–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skali, A. 2017. Moralizing gods and armed conflict. Journal of Economic Psychology 63: 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.01.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosis, R. 2006. Religious behaviors, badges, and bans: Signaling theory and the evolution of religion. In Where God and science meet, ed. P. McNamara. Westport: Praeger Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teehan, J. 2016. Religion and morality: The evolution of the cognitive nexus. In Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and religion, ed. James R. Liddle and Todd K. Shackelford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199397747.013.11.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdesolo, P., and D. DeSteno. 2011. Synchrony and the social tuning of compassion. Emotion 11: 262–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bavel, J.J., D.J. Packer, and W.A. Cunningham. 2008. The neural substrates of ingroup bias. Psychological Science 19: 1131–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, J., S.J. Greenhill, Q.D. Atkinson, T.E. Currie, J. Bulbulia, and R.D. Gray. 2015. Broad supernatural punishment but not moralizing high gods precede the evolution of political complexity in Austronesia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282: 20142556. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse, H., and J. Lanman. 2014. The ties that bind us: Ritual, fusion, and identification. Current Anthropology 55 (6): 674–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildman, W.J., and R. Sosis. 2011. Stability of groups with costly beliefs and practices. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 14 (3): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worden, L., and S.A. Levin. 2007. Evolutionary escape from the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology 245 (3): 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.10.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., X. Zuo, X. Wang, and S. Han. 2009. Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. Journal of Neuroscience 29: 8525–8529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xygalatas, D., P. Mitkidis, R. Fischer, P. Reddish, J. Skewes, A. Geertz, Bulbulia Roepstorff, and J. 2013. Extreme rituals promote prosociality. Psychological Science 20 (10): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors with to thank Justin E. Lane for generously providing time and effort in programming the model and patiently explaining the process as we went along. Without him, this chapter would obviously have not been possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Religion, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA

    John Teehan

  2. Institute for Global Development and Social Planning, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    F. LeRon Shults

  3. Center for Modeling Social Systems, Kristiansand, Norway

    F. LeRon Shults

Authors
  1. John Teehan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. LeRon Shults
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Teehan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Modeling Analysis and Simulation Center, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Saikou Y. Diallo

  2. Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

    Wesley J. Wildman

  3. Institute for Global Development and Social Planning, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    F. LeRon Shults

  4. The MITRE Corporation, Hampton, VA, USA

    Andreas Tolk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Teehan, J., Shults, F.L. (2019). Religion, Empathy, and Cooperation: A Case Study in the Promises and Challenges of Modeling and Simulation. In: Diallo, S., Wildman, W., Shults, F., Tolk, A. (eds) Human Simulation: Perspectives, Insights, and Applications. New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion , vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17090-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation