Social Surveillance Unbound: Anthropomorphic interactions make moral supervisors out of everyday objects Erica Beall1 and Jesse Graham1 1. Department of Psychology, University of Southern California Background: Social Surveillance Group-level benefits derived from the social surveillance effects of anthropomorphic deity concepts may have contributed to the evolution of religion (Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007) When people feel “watched,” behavior is more prosocial. For example, participants exposed to “eye spots” contribute more in economic games (Francey & Bergmüller, 2010) Current Studies: Anthropomorphic Surveillance STUDY 1. Can anthropomorphizing nonreligious, non-anthropomorphic objects produce the social surveillance effect? STUDY 2. What is the relationship between religiosity and the trait-level tendency to engage in secular anthropomorphism? Study 1 Method Study 2 Method USC undergraduates (N = 91) were presented with an ordinary office stapler and asked to draw it either as accurately as possible (Control Condition), or as though it were a person (Anthropomorphism Condition). Participants subsequently completed a timed math task in which they were paid for each problem they were able to solve Upon completing the math task subjects wrote down the number of problems they were able to solve, either in the presence of the experimenter (Supervised) or in private (Unsupervised) Participants were all 758 visitors to Yourmorals.org who both completed the Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism Questionnaire (Waytz et. al., 2010) and also provided information about their religious identification and attendance. Religious attendance was measured on a scale from 0 (Never) to 5 (One or more times per week). All scale points were labeled with specific frequencies. Individuals who identified with one of the 5 major world religions were grouped together under the categories Abrahamic (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) and Eastern (Hindu and Buddhist). Study 1 Results Study 2 Results Within the Abrahamic Religions, religious attendance was negatively correlated with secular anthropomorphism (r = -.16, p < .001) Within the Eastern Religions, religious attendance was positively correlated with secular anthropomorphism (r = .413, p < .001) These results suggest that exposure to (and presumably endorsement of) specific deity concepts and associated moral traditions may shape people’s perceptions of the degree to which the nonhuman world exhibits human characteristics When only the anthropomorphized stapler is present when S’s report their performance (Anthropomorphism, Unsupervised), the number of problems reported is the same as the number reported when another actual person is present during the cheating opportunity (supervised – blue line). When no one is present, and the stapler has not been anthropomorphized (unsupervised, control), significantly more problems are reported solved than when no other person is present, but the stapler has been anthropomorphized (p = .054). This indicates that when the stapler is anthropomorphized, the effect of its presence is comparable to the presence of another actual person. Conclusions The role of anthropomorphism in the evolution of religion has been highlighted, particularly in the context of enforcement of moral norms by anthropomorphized deities. The present studies suggest that the relationships between anthropomorphism, moral supervision, and religious beliefs are complex: nonreligious entities, when anthropomorphized, can morally supervise. At the same time, in some cases secular anthropomorphism and religious belief have diverged. References Francey, D., & Bergmüller, R. (2012). Images of eyes enhance investments in a real-life public good. PLoS One, 7(5), e37397. Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God is watching you priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game.Psychological science, 18(9), 803-809. Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232. This project was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.