Kristin Laurin

God and the Government: Testing a Compensatory Control Mechanism for the Support of External Systems

The authors propose that the high levels of support often observed for governmental and religious systems can be explained, in part, as a means of coping with the threat posed by chronically or situationally fluctuating levels of perceived personal control. Three experiments demonstrated a causal relation between lowered perceptions of personal control and the defense of external systems, including increased beliefs in the existence of a controlling God (Studies 1 and 2) and defense of the overarching socio-political system (Study 4). A 4th experiment (Study 5) showed the converse to be true: A challenge to the usefulness of external systems of control led to increased illusory perceptions of personal control. In addition, a cross-national data set demonstrated that lower levels of personal control are associated with higher support for governmental control (across 67 nations; Study 3). Each study identified theoretically consistent moderators and mediators of these effects. The implications of these results for understanding why a high percentage of the population believes in the existence of God, and why people so often endorse and justify their socio-political systems, are discussed.

Inequality, Discrimination, and the Power of the Status Quo: Direct Evidence for a Motivation to See the Way Things Are as the Way They Should Be

How powerful is the status quo in determining peoples social ideals? The authors propose (a) that people engage in injunctification, that is, a motivated tendency to construe the current status quo as the most desirable and reasonable state of affairs (i.e., as the most representative of how things should be); (b) that this tendency is driven, at least in part, by peoples desire to justify their sociopolitical systems; and (c) that injunctification has profound implications for the maintenance of inequality and societal change. Four studies, across a variety of domains, provided supportive evidence. When the motivation to justify the sociopolitical system was experimentally heightened, participants injunctified extant (a) political power (Study 1), (b) public funding policies (Study 2), and (c) unequal gender demographics in the political and business spheres (Studies 3 and 4, respectively). It was also demonstrated that this motivated phenomenon increased derogation of those who act counter to the status quo (Study 4). Theoretical implications for system justification theory, stereotype formation, affirmative action, and the maintenance of inequality are discussed.

Attachment and internalizing behavior in early childhood: a meta-analysis.

Empirical research supporting the contention that insecure attachment is related to internalizing behaviors has been inconsistent. Across 60 studies including 5,236 families, we found a significant, small to medium effect size linking insecure attachment and internalizing behavior (observed d = .37, 95% CI [0.27, 0.46]; adjusted d = .19, 95% CI [0.09, 0.29]). Several moderator variables were associated with differences in effect size, including concurrent externalizing behavior, gender, how the disorganized category was treated, observation versus questionnaire measures of internalizing behavior, age of attachment assessment, time elapsed between attachment and internalizing measure, and year of publication. The association between avoidant attachment and internalizing behavior was also significant and small to moderate (d = .29, 95% CI [0.12, 0.45]). The effect sizes comparing resistant to secure attachment and resistant to avoidant attachment were not significant. In 20 studies with 2,679 families, we found a small effect size linking disorganized attachment and internalizing behavior (observed d = .20, 95% CI [0.09, 0.31]); however, the effect size was not significant when adjusted for probable publication bias (d = .12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23]). The existing literature supports the general notion that insecure attachment relationships in early life, particularly avoidant attachment, are associated with subsequent internalizing behaviors, although effect sizes are not strong.

Randomness, Attributions of Arousal, and Belief in God

Beliefs in God, or similar spiritual forces, have permeated every culture the world has seen, past or present (Atran & Norenzayan, 2004). Although there are likely many reasons why such beliefs are so strongly held (Kirkpatrick, 1998; Norenzayan & Hansen, 2006), attempts to cope with perceptions of randomness may be a key factor. Randomness is presumed to be highly aversive (Pennebaker & Stone, 2004), and people will go to considerable lengths to reaffirm order in the face of evidence to the contrary (e.g., by blaming victims of random misfortune or seeing patterns in random arrays; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Lerner, 1980; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008; also see Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006). Affirming the existence of a controlling God, therefore, may provide an excellent means for insulating oneself from the aversive arousal associated with randomness. However, no experimental test of this hypothesis exists. Park (2005) has suggested that traumatic events can strengthen belief in God because of the threat they pose to nonrandomness, but this correlational research (also see Laurin, Kay, & Moscovitch, 2008) focused only on negative events and assumed (rather than directly assessed) the role of randomness. Some research has manipulated self-conceptions that may be related to preserving beliefs in order (e.g., Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008; McGregor, Haji, Nash, & Teper, 2008), but none has investigated randomness directly, and none, crucially, has assessed the role of arousal in generating between-condition differences in belief in God. In this study, we employed a novel paradigm to test (a) whether direct manipulations designed to prime thoughts of randomness cause increased beliefs in supernatural sources of control (even when controlling for negative valence) and (b) whether this effect is due to arousal generated by thoughts of randomness. To heighten thoughts of randomness, we supraliminally primed half the participants with randomness-related words; the other half were primed with words matched in negative valence. To assess the role of arousal, we employed a misattribution paradigm (Zanna & Cooper, 1974), which involved requiring all participants to swallow a pill ostensibly containing an herbal supplement. Half the participants were told that the pill sometimes induces arousal as a side effect, and half were told that the pill has no side effects. Previous work has shown that the side-effect condition leads participants to attribute the cause of any experienced arousal to this salient source (Proulx & Heine, 2008; Zanna & Cooper, 1974). Hypothesizing that beliefs in supernatural control function, at least in part, to down-regulate the aversive arousal associated with randomness, we expected the randomness primes to increase beliefs in God, but only for those participants not given the opportunity to attribute the cause of their arousal to the ingested pill.

Divergent Effects of Activating Thoughts of God on Self-Regulation

Despite the cultural ubiquity of ideas and images related to God, relatively little is known about the effects of exposure to God representations on behavior. Specific depictions of God differ across religions, but common to most is that God is (a) an omnipotent, controlling force and (b) an omniscient, all-knowing being. Given these 2 characteristic features, how might exposure to the concept of God influence behavior? Leveraging classic and recent theorizing on self-regulation and social cognition, we predict and test for 2 divergent effects of exposure to notions of God on self-regulatory processes. Specifically, we show that participants reminded of God (vs. neutral or positive concepts) demonstrate both decreased active goal pursuit (Studies 1, 2, and 5) and increased temptation resistance (Studies 3, 4, and 5). These findings provide the first experimental evidence that exposure to God influences goal pursuit and suggest that the ever-present cultural reminders of God can be both burden and benefit for self-regulation.

Social disadvantage and the self-regulatory function of justice beliefs

Five studies support the hypothesis that beliefs in societal fairness offer a self-regulatory benefit for members of socially disadvantaged groups. Specifically, members of disadvantaged groups are more likely than members of advantaged groups to calibrate their pursuit of long-term goals to their beliefs about societal fairness. In Study 1, low socioeconomic status (SES) undergraduate students who believed more strongly in societal fairness showed greater intentions to persist in the face of poor performance on a midterm examination. In Study 2, low SES participants who believed more strongly in fairness reported more willingness to invest time and effort to achieve desirable career outcomes. In Study 3, ethnic minority participants exposed to a manipulation suggesting that fairness conditions in their country were improving reported more willingness to invest resources in pursuit of long-term goals, relative to ethnic minority participants in a control condition. Study 4 replicated Study 3 using an implicit priming procedure, demonstrating that perceptions of the personal relevance of societal fairness mediate these effects. Across these 4 studies, no link between fairness beliefs and self-regulation emerged for members of advantaged (high SES, ethnic majority) groups. Study 5 contributed evidence from the World Values Survey and a representative sample (Inglehart, Basañez, Diez-Medrano, Halman, & Luijkx, 2004). Respondents reported more motivation to work hard to the extent that they believed that rewards were distributed fairly; this effect emerged more strongly for members of lower SES groups than for members of higher SES groups, as indicated by both self-identified social class and ethnicity.

Restricted Emigration, System Inescapability, and Defense of the Status Quo System-Justifying Consequences of Restricted Exit Opportunities

The freedom to emigrate at will from a geographic location is an internationally recognized human right. However, this right is systematically violated by restrictive migration policies. In three experiments, we explored the psychological consequences of violating the right to mobility. Our results suggest that, ironically, restricted freedom of movement can lead to increased system justification (i.e., increased support of the status quo). In Study 1, we found that participants who read that their country was difficult to leave became stronger defenders of their system’s legitimacy than before, even in domains unrelated to emigration policy (e.g., gender relations). In Study 2, we demonstrated that this increased system defense was the result of a motivated process. In Study 3, we broadened the scope of this psychological phenomenon by conceptually replicating it using a different system (participants’ university) and measure of system defense. The importance of these two findings—the first experimental demonstration of the psychological consequences of restrictive emigration policies and the introduction of a novel psychological phenomenon—is discussed.

Outsourcing punishment to God: beliefs in divine control reduce earthly punishment

The sanctioning of norm-transgressors is a necessary—though often costly—task for maintaining a well-functioning society. Prior to effective and reliable secular institutions for punishment, large-scale societies depended on individuals engaging in ‘altruistic punishment’—bearing the costs of punishment individually, for the benefit of society. Evolutionary approaches to religion suggest that beliefs in powerful, moralizing Gods, who can distribute rewards and punishments, emerged as a way to augment earthly punishment in large societies that could not effectively monitor norm violations. In five studies, we investigate whether such beliefs in God can replace peoples motivation to engage in altruistic punishment, and their support for state-sponsored punishment. Results show that, although religiosity generally predicts higher levels of punishment, the specific belief in powerful, intervening Gods reduces altruistic punishment and support for state-sponsored punishment. Moreover, these effects are specifically owing to differences in peoples perceptions that humans are responsible for punishing wrongdoers.

Anticipating Divine Protection? Reminders of God Can Increase Nonmoral Risk Taking

Religiosity and participation in religious activities have been linked with decreased risky behavior. In the current research, we hypothesized that exposure to the concept of God can actually increase people’s willingness to engage in certain types of risks. Across seven studies, reminders of God increased risk taking in nonmoral domains. This effect was mediated by the perceived danger of a risky option and emerged more strongly among individuals who perceive God as a reliable source of safety and protection than among those who do not. Moreover, in an eighth study, when participants were first reminded of God and then took a risk that produced negative consequences (i.e., when divine protection failed to materialize), participants reported feeling more negatively toward God than did participants in the same situation who were not first reminded of God. This research contributes to an understanding of the divergent effects that distinct components of religion can exert on behavior.

A Relationship With God? Connecting with the Divine to Assuage Fears of Interpersonal Rejection

We examine the possibility that people can leverage their “relationship” with God as a stand-in for interpersonal relationships. More specifically, we hypothesize that people will seek closeness with the divine when facing the threat of interpersonal rejection and that conversely, they will seek interpersonal closeness when facing the threat of divine rejection. We test this idea across four studies. Along the way, we test additional predictions derived from the close relationships literature, concerning the consequences of this process and the moderating role of self-esteem. Taken together, our findings add to the literature on God as a relationship partner and connect this idea to the dynamic ebb and flow of interpersonal connection.