[tialaramex]

The Princess Alice experiments are evidence for the alternative rationale that belief in invisible God-like beings who impose rules is a useful trait for early civilisations which have inadequate oversight for their members.

Superstitious people will obey rules with no actual enforcement out of a mistaken belief that an invisible Deity might punish them for disobedience, this benefits the rest of their society, at least in the short term. Of course it breaks down if a few people in society exploit everybody else's beliefs. "Princess Alice wants you to look after the sheep" is beneficial because it means shepherds do their jobs properly, but "Princess Alice needs you to sell your worldly possessions so that I can have a nice necklace" not so much.

[satellite2]

It's a rational looking theory, but is there any evidence that superstitious people exhibit more ethical behaviors?

I have the impression that since those people are not bound by evidences they can justify unethical behavior much more easily. And so this trait that should make them more ethical actually backfires and enable worse behavior.

[tialaramex]

Ah, Princess Alice doesn't check for ethical behaviour it checks for obedience.

This shows that religion could perform a valuable function in a pre-historic human society independent of whether it's true.