Showing papers by "Michael E. McCullough published in 2016"
TL;DR: This paper found that both Christians and non-Christians were more trusting of targets who wore a religious badge associated with Christianity (Ash Wednesday ashes) than toward targets who did not wear such a badge.
Abstract: We conducted 4 experiments to examine how people incorporate visual information about strangers’ religious identities—religious badges—into their decisions about how much to trust them. Experiment 1 revealed that Christian and non-Christian participants were more trusting (as measured by self-report) of targets who wore a religious badge associated with Christianity (Ash Wednesday ashes) than toward targets who did not wear such a badge. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 and also revealed that the effects of Ash Wednesday ashes on Christians’ and non-Christians’ trust extended to a behavioral measure of trust (i.e., monetary allocations in a multiplayer trust game). Experiment 3 replicated Experiments 1 and 2 with a different religious badge (a necklace with the Christian cross on it). Experiment 4 ruled out a potential confound. Consistent with a stereotype interpretation, these results suggest that U.S. students regard visual cues to people’s espousal of Christian religious beliefs as signals of their trustworthiness.
37 citations
TL;DR: The authors consider the evolutionary route by which the signaling system has maintained its reliability over deep time, assuming that the display really is a signal, and encourage researchers to consider the degree of mismatch between the experimental environment and the environments in which facial displays putatively evolved to operate as signals when designing experiments to test hypotheses regarding their signaling functions, particularly in cooperative contexts.
Abstract: Facial displays such as smiles and angry expressions appear to promote and maintain cooperation, raising the possibility that they evolved in part for signaling functions. Research programs designed to test signaling functions for these facial displays (or any others) should be organized in light of two interlocking conceptual tasks. The first task is to consider whether the display is a genuine signal, or whether it might instead be a cue or a coercive display. The second task — assuming that the display really is a signal — is to consider the evolutionary route by which the signaling system has maintained its reliability over deep time. We conclude by encouraging researchers to consider the degree of mismatch between the experimental environment and the environments in which facial displays putatively evolved to operate as signals when designing experiments to test hypotheses regarding their signaling functions — particularly in cooperative contexts.
14 citations