Skip to main content
The Behavior Analyst logoLink to The Behavior Analyst
. 1998 Spring;21(1):53–72. doi: 10.1007/BF03392780

Religious behaviors as strategies for organizing groups of people: A social contingency analysis

Bernard Guerin
PMCID: PMC2731391  PMID: 22478297

Abstract

A social contingency analysis of religion is presented, arguing that individual religious behaviors are principally maintained by the many powerful benefits of participating in social groups rather than by any immediate or obvious consequences of the religious behaviors. Six common strategies are outlined that can shape the behaviors of large groups of people. More specifically, religious behavior is shaped and maintained by making already-existing contingencies contingent upon low-probability, but socially beneficial, group behaviors. Many specific examples of religious themes are then analyzed in terms of these common strategies for social shaping, including taboos, rituals, totems, personal religious crises, and symbolic expression. For example, a common view is that people are anxious about life, death, and the unknown, and that the direct function of religious behaviors is to provide escape from such anxiety. Such an explanation is instead reversed—that any such anxiety is utilized or created by groups through having escape contingent upon members performing less probable behaviors that nonetheless provide important benefits to most individual group members. These generalized beneficial outcomes, rather than escape from anxiety, maintain the religious behaviors and this fits with observations that religions typically act to increase anxiety rather than to reduce it. An implication of this theory is that there is no difference in principle between religious and nonreligious social control, and it is demonstrated that the same social strategies are utilized in both contexts, although religion has been the more historically important form of social control.

Keywords: religious contingencies, social contingencies, verbal contingencies, low-probability behaviors, cultural survival

Full text

PDF
53

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Dougherty D. M., Cherek D. R. Effects of social context, reinforcer probability, and reinforcer magnitude on humans' choices to compete or not to compete. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jul;62(1):133–148. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994 Aug;49(8):709–724. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.49.8.709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Guerin B. Attitudes and beliefs as verbal behavior. Behav Anal. 1994 Spring;17(1):155–163. doi: 10.1007/BF03392661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Guerin B. Social behavior as discriminative stimulus and consequence in social anthropology. Behav Anal. 1992 Spring;15(1):31–41. doi: 10.1007/BF03392583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. NUNN C. Z. CHILD-CONTROL THROUGH A "COALITION WITH GOD". Child Dev. 1964 Jun;35:417–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1964.tb05179.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Behavior Analyst are provided here courtesy of Association for Behavior Analysis International

RESOURCES