Anne Berthold

Satisfaction with life and character strengths of non-religious and religious people: it’s practicing one’s religion that makes the difference

According to systematic reviews, religious beliefs and practices are related to higher life satisfaction, happiness, and positive affect (Koenig and Larson, 2001). The present research extends previous findings by comparing satisfaction with life and character strengths of non-religious people, religious people, who practice their religion and people that have a religious affiliation but do not practice their religion. We assessed life satisfaction (SWLS), character strengths (VIA-IS) and the orientations to happiness (OTH) in a sample of N = 20538 participants. People with a religious affiliation that also practice their religion were found to be more satisfied with their life and scored higher on life of meaning than those who do not practice their religion and than non-religious people. Also religious people who practice their religion differed significantly from those who do not practice their religion and non-religious people regarding several character strengths; they scored higher on kindness, love, gratitude, hope, forgiveness, and on spirituality. There were no substantial differences between people who had no religious affiliation and those with a religious affiliation that do not practice their religion (all ηp2s < 0.009). Altogether, the present findings suggest that people profit from a religious affiliation if they also actively practice their religion.

How Do We Assign Punishment? The Impact of Minimal and Maximal Standards on the Evaluation of Deviants

To explain the determinants of negative behavior toward deviants (e.g., punishment), this article examines how people evaluate others on the basis of two types of standards: minimal and maximal. Minimal standards focus on an absolute cutoff point for appropriate behavior; accordingly, the evaluation of others varies dichotomously between acceptable or unacceptable. Maximal standards focus on the degree of deviation from that standard; accordingly, the evaluation of others varies gradually from positive to less positive. This framework leads to the prediction that violation of minimal standards should elicit punishment regardless of the degree of deviation, whereas punishment in response to violations of maximal standards should depend on the degree of deviation. Four studies assessed or manipulated the type of standard and degree of deviation displayed by a target. Results consistently showed the expected interaction between type of standard (minimal and maximal) and degree of deviation on punishment behavior.

“A letter for Dr. Outgroup”: on the effects of an indicator of competence and chances for altruism toward a member of a stigmatized out-group

The lost letter technique is an unobtrusive method to investigate attitudes in a particular population. Ostensibly lost letters from senders who apparently belong to different groups or addressed to recipients from apparently different groups are dispersed in public places, and return rates represent a measure of altruistic or discriminatory behavior toward one group or another. In two field experiments using the lost letter technique, we investigated the influence of group membership and the presence or absence of a doctorate degree as an indicator of competence on the likelihood of receiving helping behavior. Experiment 1 showed that a generic member of a low-status ethnic out-group (Turks living in Germany) was the target of discrimination, while a generic member of a non-stigmatized out-group (French in Germany) was not. Moreover, when the name of the member from the stigmatized out-group was (vs. was not) preceded by a doctorate degree, more of the allegedly lost letters were returned. There were no such differential effects for recipients who were members of the in-group (Germans) or the non-stigmatized out-group (French). Experiment 2 showed that a recipient from the stigmatized out-group (Turk) with a doctorate degree received more letters when the sender was German versus Turkish (i.e., from the recipient’s own group). Overall, the sender’s ethnic group membership was an important factor for the likelihood of receiving an ostensibly lost letter, in that fewer letters arrived from a sender with a Turkish (vs. German) name. We conclude that the likelihood of altruistic behavior toward out-group members can increase when in-group members intend to communicate with competent out-group members. Therefore, under certain conditions, the presentation of a highly competent member of an otherwise stigmatized out-group may serve as a discrimination buffer.