1. Nikolette Lipsey, Gabrielle Pogge, James Shepperd, & Wendi Miller Abstract What are the consequences of believing in loving God versus a punitive God? Belief in a punitive God may prompt good behavior because people fear punishment (Supernatural Punisher Hypothesis) or aggressive behavior because a punitive God models how to behave (Punitive Model Hypothesis). Belief in a loving God may prompt good behavior because of the possibility of rewards or because a loving God models for good behavior (Positive Agent Hypothesis). We tested these hypotheses longitudinally and cross-sectionally. Adolescents (N=1,162) reported the extent of their beliefs in a loving God and a punitive God and reported their engagement in prosocial and antisocial behaviors. We found no support for the Supernatural Punisher Hypothesis or the Punitive Model Hypothesis; belief in a punitive God was unrelated to behavior. We found consistent support for the Positive Agent Hypothesis; belief in a loving God corresponded with reports of less aggressive and more prosocial behavior. Results Competing Hypotheses It is noteworthy that few participants endorsed a punitive God. The vast majority of our participants viewed God as highly loving and non-punitive (48.9%) or as highly loving and moderately punitive (32.6%). Virtually no participants viewed God as highly punitive. Thus, the lack of support for the Supernatural Punisher Hypothesis and the Punitive Model Hypothesis may have arisen from the fact that our sample generally did not view God as particularly punitive. Future Directions Future research should attempt to test how views of God as a positive model versus the potential for supernatural reward operate to increase prosocial behavior and decrease antisocial behavior among religious adolescents. Presented at the 17 th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in San Diego, CA. Nikolette Lipsey: nlipsey@ufl.edu Gabrielle Pogge: gcm0402@ufl.edu Graduate researchers, University of Florida Presented at the 17 th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in San Diego, CA. Nikolette Lipsey: nlipsey@ufl.edu Gabrielle Pogge: gcm0402@ufl.edu Graduate researchers, University of Florida Recent research documents differences in how people view God, with some people viewing God as punitive and some people viewing God as loving. The consequences of these different views of God are unclear. We gleaned from the literature three hypotheses regarding how different views of God may correspond to behavior. Supernatural Punisher Hypothesis People are particularly sensitive to potentially negative supernatural consequences of their behavior, i.e., punishment (Johnson & Krüger,2004). Accordingly, greater endorsement of a punitive God will presumably correspond with reports of greater prosocial behavior and less antisocial behavior. Punitive Model Hypothesis People who believe in a punitive God may infer how to treat others from their beliefs. Accordingly, greater endorsement of a punitive God will presumably correspond with reports of less prosocial behavior and greater antisocial behavior. Positive Agent Hypothesis People who believe in a loving God may believe that good behavior will be rewarded (paralleling the Supernatural Punisher Hypothesis) or may infer that a loving God models how people should behave towards others (paralleling the Punitive Model Hypothesis). Either way, belief in a loving God will presumably correspond with greater prosocial behavior and less antisocial behavior). Views of God and Consequences for Behavior Looking at the analyses collectively, the data provide no support for the Supernatural Punisher Hypothesis or the Punitive Model Hypothesis. Belief in a punitive God was unrelated to physical or verbal aggression and unrelated to our measures of prosocial behavior. Conversely, we found strong support for the Positive Agent Hypothesis. Specifically, endorsement of a loving God corresponded with more prosocial behavior and less antisocial behavior. Discussion Regression Results Loving God Punitive God Outcomes (Measured at Time 2 and 3)Time 1Time 3 Time 1Time 3 Antisocial Outcomes Indirect Aggression-.122**-.048.014.034 Direct Aggression-.101*-.060.066.077 Prosocial Outcomes Everyday Helping.155**.141** -.012.030 Religious Charity.395**.387** -.005.006 Secular Charity.306**.190** -.046-.034 Religious Volunteering.295**.343**.009.028 Secular Volunteering.194**.184** -.057-.034 Forgiveness of Others.158**.165** -.040-.086* Loving God Punitive God Outcomes (Measured at Time 2 and 3)Time 1Time 3 Time 1Time 3 Antisocial Outcomes Indirect Aggression-.124**-.049.013.035 Direct Aggression-.103*-.060.067.074 Prosocial Outcomes Everyday Helping.157**.141** -.010.031 Religious Charity.397**.387**.001.013 Secular Charity.308**.190** -.043-.031 Religious Volunteering.299**.342**.011.033 Secular Volunteering.198**.183** -.054-.032 Forgiveness of Others.158**.164** -.041-.082 Note: *p <.01, **p <.001. All numbers reflect standardized regression coefficients after controlling for social desirability concerns.. Separate Regressions Simultaneous Regressions