Display options
Share it on

Hum Nat. 2005 Dec;16(4):360-81. doi: 10.1007/s12110-005-1015-2.

Reasoning about dead agents reveals possible adaptive trends.

Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.)

Jesse M Bering, Katrina McLeod, Todd K Shackelford

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas, 72701, Fayetteville, AR. [email protected].
  2. Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas, 72701, Fayetteville, AR.
  3. Florida Atlantic University, USA.

PMID: 26189837 DOI: 10.1007/s12110-005-1015-2

Abstract

We investigated whether (a) people positively reevaluate the characters of recently dead others and (b) supernatural primes concerning an ambient dead agent serve to curb selfish intentions. In Study 1, participants made trait attributions to three strangers depicted in photographs; one week later, they returned to do the same but were informed that one of the strangers had died over the weekend. Participants rated the decedent target more favorably after learning of his death whereas ratings for the control targets remained unchanged between sessions. This effect was especially pronounced for traits dealing with the decedent's prosocial tendencies (e.g., ethical, kind). In Study 2, a content analysis of obituaries revealed a similar emphasis on decedents' prosocial attributes over other personality dimensions (e.g., achievement-relatedness, social skills). Finally, in Study 3, participants who were told of an alleged ghost in the laboratory were less likely to cheat on a competitive task than those who did not receive this supernatural prime. The findings are interpreted as evidence suggestive of adaptive design.

Keywords: Afterlife; Attribution; Cooperation; Death; Evolutionary theory; Religion; Theory of Mind

References

  1. Behav Brain Sci. 2002 Aug;25(4):489-504; discussion 504-53 - PubMed
  2. Cognition. 2005 Jun;96(2):93-108 - PubMed
  3. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Sep 21;205(1161):581-98 - PubMed
  4. Psychol Bull. 2004 May;130(3):435-68 - PubMed
  5. Dev Psychol. 2004 Mar;40(2):217-33 - PubMed
  6. Cogn Psychol. 2003 Feb;46(1):1-30 - PubMed
  7. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jan;4(1):29-34 - PubMed
  8. Hum Nat. 2003 Jun;14(2):91-127 - PubMed
  9. Behav Brain Sci. 2005 Oct;28(5):675-91; discussion 691-735 - PubMed
  10. Hum Nat. 2007 Jun;18(2):88-108 - PubMed
  11. Child Dev. 1984 Oct;55(5):1671-86 - PubMed
  12. Mem Cognit. 2004 Jan;32(1):72-82 - PubMed
  13. Am Psychol. 1998 May;53(5):533-48 - PubMed
  14. Cognition. 2004 Nov;94(1):95-103 - PubMed
  15. Hum Nat. 1999 Sep;10(3):311-27 - PubMed
  16. Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Dec;27(6):713-30; discussion 730-70 - PubMed
  17. Br J Dev Psychol. 2005 Nov;23(4):587-607 - PubMed

Publication Types