Effect of Scriptural Violence on Aggression
Effect of Scriptural Violence on Aggression
There is a growing concern about the foundations, or cornerstones of violence in our society, as we try to rationalize the loss of life that has occurred in multiple instances of extreme violence. One possible source under scrutiny is the bible. Psychologist Brad Bushman, of the University of Michigan, and his peers, recently performed a detailed study of the violence found in the bible, and other religious instructional texts, or “holy books” in order to determine whether or not these texts specifically sanction violence as a commandment of God. Further the study hoped to determine whether or not reading, and adhering to, these religious precepts increased the anger and aggression of the follower.
More specifically, the study stated that attacks based on religious zeal like the terrorist actions of Christian extremist Timothy McVey, Jewish reactionary Baruch Goldstein, and Islamic terrorist leader Osama bin Laden has inspired expanded study of what thought or belief patterns inspire individuals to commit violent acts (Bushman et al., 2007). This led the study toward a hypothesis that those exposed to biblical passages about violence would be more likely to act aggressively or engage in increasingly violent behavior, and that biblical texts inspired greater levels of aggression than similar texts of a secular nature (Bushman et al., 2007). Further, the study hoped to prove, or predict that when people believe their aggressive actions are “sanctioned by God” giving them “high justification,” they act more aggressively than when their actions are not religiously sanctioned, or they have low justification (Bushman et al., 2007).
The research was then broken into two basic studies (Bushman et al., 2007). The first study considered 248 undergraduate students from Brigham Young University, where 99% of students are adherent to the bible, and 97% are specifically Mormon. The second study involved a group of 242 undergrads at Vrije University, in Amsterdam, only 50% reported a belief in God, and only 27% of which belonged to any Christian denomination. The study, including representatives from several major religious affiliations, including Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish faiths in addition to Christians (Bushman et al., 2007). The students in each group were then directed to read passages of scriptures from the King James Version of the bible, the control group read only the biblical passage, while the test groups, in each study, were directed to read the assigned package, with edits that included the command of God to “chasten” their brethren (Bushman et al., 2007). Participants were then directed to play a game in which they inflicted harm on their partner if they won. The degree of “loudness” for the buzz that their partner herd was considered the measure of aggressiveness they displayed (Bushman et al., 2007).
Generally, the study found that students at Bringham Young were substantially more aggressive than their peers at Vrije University, and those who heard the additional verse about chastisement were more aggressive than those who did not, in both settings. The research thus drew the conclusion that fundamentalisms is likely the origin of violence, and religious terrorism often inspires extremists to take aggressive action. More specifically, the researchers concluded that “To the extent religious extremists engage in prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on violent retribution toward unbelievers instead of the overall message of acceptance and understanding, one might expect to see increased brutality” (Bushman et al., 2007).
.
For me, this study was interesting in terms of the response that different listeners appeared to have to the passage selected, however the findings seem circumspect at best. First, the study did not actually study violence and aggression. The level of sound inflicted on an opponent in a game has little, if any, justifiable connection with the actions of a terrorist or violent extremist like Osama Bin Laden, and Timothy McVey. There connection is based on pure supposition, and not only any actual relatability between the actions, and the motives that inspired those actions.
Further, the study used only biblical text, while trying to draw conclusions about not only adherents of the Christian faith, but also Jewish believers, who follow the Torah, and Islamic believers who follow the Quran. For the study to accurately survey these relationships, passages would have to be read from all of those texts, by both participants who were adherent to their principles, and likewise by the non-religious.
Also, by having half of the participants read a section of passage that was in no way biblical, or a passage which had been edited and used to amend the legitimate passage from King James, the study negated its own hypothesis. The goal was to measure the reader’s response to biblical messages, concepts, and the reading of biblical passages. By including a non-biblical passage, it became impossible to accurately measure response to biblical text.
As such, I think that further research is necessary in order to draw the specific conclusions that are outlined herein. Studies need to be conducted that are more accurate and scientific in nature, that measure actual aggression, and that test a greater number of religions in order to determine how violence and religiosity are connected.
References:
Bushman et al., (2007). "When God Sanctions Killing: Effect of Scriptural Violence on Aggression," Psychological Science.
