Citation

Liddle JR, Machluf K, Shackelford TK. Evol. Psychol. 2010; 8(3): 343-345.

Affiliation

Florida Atlantic University, Department of Psychology, 3200 College Avenue, Davie, Florida, USA. jliddle1@fau.edu

Comment In:

Evol Psychol 2010;8(3):346-9.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, The Author(s), Publisher Ian Pitchford and Robert M. Young)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

22947803

Abstract

We comment on work by Ginges, Hansen, and Norenzayan (2009), in which they compare two hypotheses for predicting individual support for suicide terrorism: the religious-belief hypothesis and the coalitional-commitment hypothesis. Although we appreciate the evidence provided in support of the coalitional-commitment hypothesis, we argue that their method of testing the religious-belief hypothesis is conceptually flawed, thus calling into question their conclusion that the religious-belief hypothesis has been disconfirmed. In addition to critiquing the methodology implemented by Ginges et al., we provide suggestions on how the religious-belief hypothesis may be properly tested. It is possible that the premature and unwarranted conclusions reached by Ginges et al. may deter researchers from examining the effect of specific religious beliefs on support for terrorism, and we hope that our comments can mitigate this possibility.

Language: en