Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-23T01:43:02.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Parochial prosocial religions: Historical and contemporary evidence for a cultural evolutionary process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2016

Ara Norenzayan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Canada. ara@psych.ubc.ca ramcnama@psych.ubc.ca http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/
Azim F. Shariff
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. shariff@uoregon.edu http://sharifflab.com/
Will M. Gervais
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506. will.gervais@uky.edu willgervais.com
Aiyana K. Willard
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. aiyana@psych.ubc.ca www.aiyanawillard.com
Rita A. McNamara
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Canada. ara@psych.ubc.ca ramcnama@psych.ubc.ca http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/
Edward Slingerland
Affiliation:
Department of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 Canada. edward.slingerland@gmail.com http://eslingerland.arts.ubc.ca
Joseph Henrich
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology & Economics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Canada. joseph.henrich@gmail.com http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/ Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Abstract

In our response to the 27 commentaries, we refine the theoretical claims, clarify several misconceptions of our framework, and explore substantial disagreements. In doing so, we (1) show that our framework accommodates multiple historical scenarios; (2) debate the historical evidence, particularly about “pre-Axial” religions; (3) offer important details about cultural evolutionary theory; (4) clarify the term prosociality; and (4) discuss proximal mechanisms. We review many interesting extensions, amplifications, and qualifications of our approach made by the commentators.

Information

Type
Authors' Response
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable