Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun 1;12(6):956-964.
doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx023.

In God we trust? Neural measures reveal lower social conformity among non-religious individuals

Ravi Thiruchselvam  1 , Yashoda Gopi  1 , Leonard Kilekwang  1 , Jessica Harper  1 , James J Gross  2
Affiliations

In God we trust? Neural measures reveal lower social conformity among non-religious individuals

Ravi Thiruchselvam et al. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. .

Abstract

Even in predominantly religious societies, there are substantial individual differences in religious commitment. Why is this? One possibility is that differences in social conformity (i.e. the tendency to think and behave as others do) underlie inclination towards religiosity. However, the link between religiosity and conformity has not yet been directly examined. In this study, we tested the notion that non-religious individuals show dampened social conformity, using both self-reported and neural (EEG-based ERPs) measures of sensitivity to others' influence. Non-religious vs religious undergraduate subjects completed an experimental task that assessed levels of conformity in a domain unrelated to religion (i.e. in judgments of facial attractiveness). Findings showed that, although both groups yielded to conformity pressures at the self-report level, non-religious individuals did not yield to such pressures in their neural responses. These findings highlight a novel link between religiosity and social conformity, and hold implications for prominent theories about the psychological functions of religion.

Keywords: EEG/ERP; late positive potential; religion; social conformity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Trial structure for the experimental task.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Self-reported attractiveness scores by trial type in the religious and non-religious group. Error bars reflect standard error of the mean.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
LPP waveforms (at site Pz) to face presentation by trial type in the religious and non-religious group.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
LPP waveforms (at site Pz) to peer-rating presentation by trial type in the religious and non-religious group. The 500–1000 ms time range used for analyses is highlighted for clarity.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Asch S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, Leadership, and Men, 222–36.
    1. Bradley, M. M., Hamby, S., Löw, A., Lang, P. J. (2007). Brain potentials in perception: picture complexity and emotional arousal. Psychophysiology, 44(3), 364–73. - PubMed
    1. Braver T.S., Barch D.M., Gray J.R., Molfese D.L., Snyder A. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: effects of frequency, inhibition and errors. Cerebral Cortex, 11(9), 825–36. - PubMed
    1. Brooks A.C. (2008). Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America—and How We Can Get More of It. New York: Basic Books.
    1. Cialdini R.B., Goldstein N.J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. - PubMed