Transcript Christians
Religion, Prejudice, & Group Characteristics Mark J. Brandt tbslaboratory.com @mjpsp Prejudice A negative evaluation of a group or of an individual on the basis of group membership. Brown, 2010; Crandall et al., 2002, 2013; Graziano et al., 2007 Lots of groups! (At Least) Two Advantages Identify consistent and inconsistent predictors Identify characteristics of target groups Traditional Perspective Low/No Religiosity Religiosity/ Fundamentalism Dispositions Open to Experience Cognitive Complexity Intolerant of Ambiguity Preference for Order Binding Moral Foundations More Prejudice Less Prejudice Traditional Perspective Dissimilar to Fundamentalists Similar to Fundamentalists Non-Fundamentalists Fundamentalists Worldview Conflict Perspective Evolutionary Models e.g., Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005 SimilarityLiking e.g., Byrne, 1971 Meaning Systems e.g., Heine et al., 2006 1. People are motivated to defend values and worldviews 2. Prejudice/intolerance towards people with conflicting attitudes/worldviews is one strategy More Prejudice Less Prejudice Two Hypotheses Traditional Hypothesis Worldview Conflict Hypothesis Dissimilar to Fundamentalists Similar to Fundamentalists Non-Fundamentalists Fundamentalists Non-Fundamentalists Fundamentalists Study 1 - Methods 2012 American National Election Study (N = 5225) Fundamentalism: 2-items, ad-hoc Mechanical Turk (N = 241) Fundamentalism Altemeyer & Hunsberger’s scale Feeling thermometers for fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist groups Study 1 - Methods Similar to Fundamentalists Dissimilar to Fundamentalists Catholics Atheists Christians Feminists Tea Party Gay men and Lesbians Conservatives Liberals Study 1 - Results Study 2 - Methods Mechanical Turk (N = 282) Fundamentalism Altemeyer & Hunsberger’s scale • Feeling thermometers… • Social closeness… • Humanness… • Four types of perceived threat… …for fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist groups Study 2 - Results Study 3 - Methods Mechanical Turk (N = 299) Post-Critical Belief Scale (Duriez et al., 2005) Literal Symbolic Religious Disbelief Study 3 Group Characteristics Group Characteristics Study 4 - Methods Sample 1: Mechanical Turk (N = 299) Post-Critical Belief Scale (Duriez et al., 2005) Feelings thermometers: 23 groups (same data as prior study) Sample 2: Mechanical Turk (N = 146) Ideology Samples means Status Choice (data from Brandt & Crawford, 2016, SPPS) Study 4 - Methods Asian American Atheists Big Business Blacks Catholics Christians Conservatives Feminists Gay Men and Lesbians Hispanics Illegal Immigrants Labor Unions Liberals Middle Class People Mormons Muslims People on Welfare Poor People Rich People Tea Party The Military Whites Working Class People Study 4 Multilevel models Target groups nested in Participants Study 4 t = 14.3, p < .001 Study 4 t = 14.3, p < .001 t = -3.9, p < .001 Study 4 t = 14.3, p < .001 t = -3.9, p < .001 t = 0.9, p = .39 Take Homes • Both believers & non-believers express prejudice • Both believers & non-believers find dissimilar groups threatening • Ideology is the primary group characteristic that matters Thanks! Daryl van Tongeren @mjpsp [email protected] tbslaboratory.com collaborator studies 1-3