Hand of God, Mind of Man: Punishment and Cognition in the Evolution of Cooperation*

By Dominic D. P. Johnson, Jesse M. Bering. 2006

279 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The evolution of human cooperation remains a puzzle because cooperation persists even in conditions that rule out mainstream explanations. We present a novel solution that links two recent theories. First, Johnson & Kruger (2004) suggested that ancestral cooperation was promoted because norm violations were deterred by the threat of supernatural punishment. However, this only works if individuals attribute negative life events (or a prospective afterlife) as intentionally caused by supernatural agents. A complementary cognitive mechanism is therefore required. Recently, Bering and Shackelford (2004) suggested precisely this. The evolution of “theory of mind” and, specifically, the “intentionality system” (a cognitive system devoted to making inferences about the epistemic contents and intentions of other minds), strongly favoured: (1) the selection of human psychological traits for monitoring and controlling the flow of social information within groups; and (2) attributions of life events to supernatural agency. We argue that natural selection favoured such attributions because, in a cognitively sophisticated social environment, a fear of supernatural punishment steered individuals away from costly social transgressions resulting from unrestrained, evolutionarily ancestral, selfish interest (acts which would rapidly become known to others, and thereby incur an increased probability and severity of punishment by group members). As long as the net costs of selfish actions from real-world punishment by group members exceeded the net costs of lost opportunities from self-imposed norm abiding, then god-fearing individuals would outcompete non-believers.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0e363a8b5fcca9b2da8283c458ed82b21b3338a2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans (2013, background): “This can select for a default strategy of cooperation—or at least an avoidance of unambiguous complete selfishness—so that people avoid the high costs of detected selfishness (Delton et al., 2011; Frank, 1988; Johnson & Bering, 2006; West et al., 2011).”
Principles of Religious Prosociality: A Review and Reformulation (2010, methodology): “The supernatural principle thereby provides an effective means of maintaining social order, by creating a system of moral self-enforcement, fueled by fear and guilt (cf. Bering & Johnson, 2005; Johnson & Bering, 2006).”
“Lean not on your own understanding”: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority and non-utilitarian moral judgments (2013, background): “…divine authority is not to be questioned, either out of respect for God’s supreme wisdom or for fear of inciting His wrath (e.g., Genesis 22:5-8; Isaiah 55:8-9; Job 34:12; Qur’an 6:151; Romans 1:18; see also Aquinas, ca. 1273/1947; Boyer, 2001; Johnson & Bering, 2006; Shariff & Rhemtulla, 2012).”
Religion, spirituality, and altruism (2013, background): “A reputation-based religious prosociality has been facilitated by the belief in an omniscient supernatural being that controls human actions and thoughts and punishes the cheaters of the reciprocity norms (D. D. P. Johnson & Bering, 2006; D. D. P. Johnson & Kruger, 2004).”
Beliefs about God, the afterlife and morality support the role of supernatural policing in human cooperation (2011, background): “As well as corroborating previous work linking religiosity to prosociality (Henrich et al., 2010; Snarey, 1996; Johnson & Bering, 2006; Johnson & Krüger, 2004; Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008; Roes & Raymond, 2003; Stark, 2001), we find support for the thesis that across cultures specific features of…”
Like a camera in the sky? Thinking about God increases public self-awareness and socially desirable responding (2012, background): “…unified explanation for these findings and implies that God concepts may promote prosociality in part by reminding people of watchful supernatural agents who are capable of moral judgment (see, e.g., Bering, 2006; Boyer, 2001; Johnson & Bering, 2006; McKay et al., 2011; Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008).”
Effects of religious setting on cooperative behavior: a case study from Mauritius (2013, background): “Thus, it is argued that exposure to such cues may reinforce social norms and promote prosocial behavior by providing reminders of supernatural threats and rewards (Bulbulia, 2010; Johnson & Bering, 2006; Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008; Roes & Raymond, 2003; Rossano, 2007).”
Evolutionary accounts of belief in supernatural punishment: a critical review (2011, background): “…likelihood of detection and punishment, and as reputationally mediated consequences amplify actual punitive costs, belief in SP enables the individual to avoid or reduce costs that would be incurred when one defects and is detected (Johnson, 2005; Johnson & Krüger, 2004; Johnson & Bering, 2009).”
The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior (2009, background): “Why should someone “voluntarily” submit to the dictates of a conscience? Regardless of such issues in detail, however, it really does look like religiosity helps to overcome the second-order “free-rider” problem (Johnson and Bering 2006).”