![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/satan-the-devil-750x375.jpg)
People who believe in supernatural evil are more likely to blame society for poverty, while those who believe in a supportive deity are less likely to do so. These findings come from a recent survey of South Korean adults published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. The research reveals how specific theological ideas intersect with political ideology to shape public views on social inequality.
Sociologists use the term stratification beliefs to describe how people explain why some individuals are wealthy and others are impoverished. In this field of study, explanations for poverty are generally divided into two main categories. Individualistic beliefs place the blame on the poor themselves, citing a lack of effort, talent, or financial discipline. Structuralist beliefs fault the broader economic and social systems, pointing to issues like discrimination, low wages, or underfunded schools.
How a person explains poverty often predicts their support for welfare programs and redistributive economic policies. Past research has examined how religion influences these views, but most studies have focused simply on whether a person belongs to a specific denomination. Researchers often categorize people as Catholic, Protestant, or Buddhist without examining the specific nature of their personal faith.
To address this gap, sociologists Jong Hyun Jung and Muhan Chen of Sungkyunkwan University, along with Harris Hyun-soo Kim of Ewha Womans University, designed a study focused on specific supernatural beliefs. They wanted to understand how belief in a supportive divine presence compares to a belief in supernatural evil when it comes to predicting attitudes toward poverty. The team also sought to test these relationships outside of a Western context.
They chose South Korea for its unique blend of religious traditions, where Buddhism, Protestantism, and Catholicism coexist alongside a large population of people with no religious affiliation. Supernatural belief in South Korea is also moderate compared to heavily Christian nations like the United States. This environment provided a distinct cultural backdrop to see if previous theories about religion and economics hold true in a different setting.
The researchers analyzed data from an online survey of 1,632 South Korean adults conducted in August 2024. The participant pool was recruited to match the national population in terms of age, gender, and geographic region. Because the survey included questions about a person’s relationship with God, the researchers excluded respondents who stated they completely disbelieved in a deity.
The survey asked participants to rate their agreement with statements measuring two distinct theological concepts. Belief in divine support was measured by asking if respondents felt they had a warm relationship with God and if God was responsive to their personal needs. Belief in supernatural evil was measured by asking participants if they believed in the existence of demons, hell, and the devil.
Participants then rated the importance of various causes of poverty. To measure individualistic views, the survey asked about factors like personal irresponsibility and a lack of thrift. To gauge structuralist views, respondents evaluated the role of low wages, prejudice, and a failure of private industry to provide enough good jobs. The researchers also asked participants to rate their own political orientation on a scale from very liberal to very conservative.
When the researchers analyzed the data, they found that neither religious belief was associated with individualistic explanations for poverty. People who reported a warm relationship with God were no more likely to blame poor individuals for their circumstances than those with weaker divine beliefs. The same held true for those who firmly believed in demons and hell.
The authors suggest that this lack of association might stem from the charitable aspects of religious involvement. Believing in a supportive deity might increase a person’s sense of compassion for others. This humanitarian impulse could prevent believers from harshly judging those who fall below the poverty line, even if their faith encourages self-reliance in other areas of life.
A different pattern emerged when the researchers looked at structuralist explanations for poverty. Belief in divine support was negatively associated with blaming systemic and economic issues. In other words, individuals who felt closely supported by God were less likely to view poor schools or low wages as the primary drivers of poverty.
This result aligns with an academic concept known as the insurance effect. Some sociologists argue that religion provides psychological comfort and a sense of security that functions much like a social safety net. People who rely on a divine figure for support during hard times might feel less need for government intervention, prompting them to discount systemic explanations for economic hardship.
Conversely, belief in supernatural evil was positively associated with structuralist views. Respondents who expressed a strong belief in the devil, hell, and demons were more likely to blame society and economic systems for poverty. The researchers interpret this through the lens of a spiritual warfare worldview, which sees the universe as a battleground between good and evil.
In this worldview, adversarial supernatural forces are thought to be actively working to harm humanity. Believers might view oppressive social structures, rampant discrimination, or failing schools as manifestations of these dark forces. As a result, they may attribute the suffering of the poor to these external, corrupt systems rather than pointing the finger at the individuals experiencing the hardship.
The research team also looked at how political orientation interacted with these supernatural beliefs. In general, conservative respondents were much less likely to endorse structuralist explanations for poverty than liberal respondents. This aligns with a wide body of existing political science research.
However, a strong belief in supernatural evil modified this trend among political conservatives. For respondents who leaned conservative, higher levels of belief in demons and hell were linked to a sharp increase in structuralist views of poverty. In fact, conservatives with the strongest belief in supernatural evil were nearly identical to liberals in their tendency to blame the system for poverty. Belief in supernatural evil did not have this effect on liberal respondents, who generally favored structuralist explanations regardless of their religious views.
The researchers note several caveats to consider when interpreting these results. The survey captured a single snapshot in time, meaning the data cannot prove a specific directional relationship between the variables. It is entirely possible that a person’s preexisting views on poverty and inequality shape how they interpret their religious faith, rather than the other way around.
Cultural differences also provide important context for these results. Research in psychology indicates that people in East Asian societies often lean toward environmental and situational explanations for human behavior, whereas Westerners frequently favor individualistic explanations. This cultural baseline in South Korea might suppress any potential link between religious beliefs and individualistic views on poverty, a dynamic that could look entirely different in the United States or Europe.
Additionally, the concepts of God and evil carry different meanings across varying religious traditions. A devout Buddhist and a practicing Protestant might interpret survey questions about supernatural forces in entirely different ways. Future research will need to untangle how specific doctrinal teachings within different faiths interact with public opinions on wealth and inequality.
The study, “Belief in Supernatural Agents and Lay Explanations About the Causes of Poverty,” was authored by Jong Hyun Jung, Muhan Chen, and Harris Hyun-soo Kim.