Perceived Morality and Antiatheist Prejudice: A Replication and Extension

Recent evidence suggests that, although moral distrust drives antiatheist prejudice, certain types of morality are central: Perceived atheist moral capacity for caring and compassion appears to be central, whereas perceived atheist moral capacity for fairness, in-group loyalty, deferential respect, or purity/decency is not (Simpson & Rios, 2017). Here, we extend this research. First, we conceptually replicated experimental effects: Manipulating the perception that atheists strongly versus weakly value morality affects antiatheist prejudice much more strongly if the type of morality relates to caring/compassion rather than purity/sanctity (N = 162; U.S. Christian theists recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk). This finding was particularly strong among White participants. Second, we provide evidence for cross-national replication of correlational findings among Australian undergraduate theists (N = 85; recruited from the University of Melbourne) as well as evidence to suggest that the type of perceived morality that predicts prejudice differs according to the social group in question. Specifically, only perceived atheist concern for caring/compassion reliably predicted antiatheist prejudice, whereas perceived Jewish concern caring/compassion and in-group loyalty predicted anti-Jewish prejudice. Results reinforce existing evidence that increasing perceptions of atheist benevolence will help reduce antiatheist prejudice and provide novel support for social-functionalist theories of prejudice.     

A sociofunctional approach to prejudice at the polls: are atheists more politically disadvantaged than gays and Blacks?

Prejudice against atheists is pervasive in the United States. Atheists lag behind virtually all other minority groups on measures of social acceptance. The sociofunctional approach suggests that distrust is at the core of anti‐atheist prejudice, thus making it qualitatively different than prejudice against other disadvantaged groups. Accordingly, this research examined political bias against atheists, gays, and Blacks and the affective content accompanying such biases. Results indicated that atheists suffered the largest deficit in voting intentions from Christian participants, and this deficit was accompanied by distrust, disgust, and fear, thereby suggesting that the affective content of anti‐atheist prejudice is both broader and more extreme than prejudice against other historically disadvantaged groups. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.     

Finding the faithless: perceived atheist prevalence reduces anti-atheist prejudice

Although prejudice is typically positively related to relative outgroup size, four studies found converging evidence that perceived atheist prevalence reduces anti-atheist prejudice. Study 1 demonstrated that anti-atheist prejudice among religious believers is reduced in countries in which atheists are especially prevalent. Study 2 demonstrated that perceived atheist prevalence is negatively associated with anti-atheist prejudice. Study 3 demonstrated a causal relationship: Reminders of atheist prevalence reduced explicit distrust of atheists. These results appeared distinct from intergroup contact effects. Study 4 demonstrated that prevalence information decreased implicit atheist distrust. The latter two experiments provide the first evidence that mere prevalence information can reduce prejudice against any outgroup. These findings offer insights about anti-atheist prejudice, a poorly understood phenomenon. Furthermore, they suggest both novel directions for future prejudice research and potential interventions that could reduce a variety of prejudices.     

Homophobia in physical education and sport: The role of physical/sporting identity and attributes,authoritarian aggression,and social dominance orientation

We examined levels of, and reasons for, anti‐gay and anti‐lesbian prejudice (homophobia) in pre‐service physical education (PE) and non‐physical education (non‐PE) university students. Participants (N = 409; 66% female; N = 199 pre‐service physical educators) completed questionnaires assessing anti‐gay and lesbian prejudice, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), physical/athletic identity and self‐concept, and physical attributes. ANCOVAs revealed that PE students had higher levels of anti‐gay (p = .004) and lesbian prejudice than non‐PE students (p = .008), respectively. Males reported greater anti‐gay prejudice (p < .001), but not anti‐lesbian prejudice, than females. Authoritarian aggression was positively associated with greater anti‐gay (β = .49) and lesbian prejudice (β = .37) among male participants. Among females, higher authoritarian aggression and SDO was associated with greater anti‐gay (β = .34 and β = .25, respectively) and lesbian (β = .26 and β = .16, respectively) prejudice. The physical identity‐related constructs of athletic self‐concept (β = .?15) and perceived upper body strength (β = .39) were associated with anti‐gay attitudes among male participants. Physical attractiveness (β = ?.29) and upper body strength (β = .29) were also associated with male participants’ anti‐lesbian prejudice. Regression analyses showed that the differences between PE and non‐PE students in anti‐gay and lesbian prejudice were largely mediated by authoritarianism and SDO. The present study is the first to examine the relationship between investment in physical/sporting identity and attributes and anti‐gay and lesbian prejudice in PE/sport participants. In the present sample, anti‐gay and lesbian prejudice was greater in pre‐service PE students than non‐PE students, but these differences appear to be explained by differences in conservative ideological traits. Additionally, physical identity and athletic attributes based around masculine ideals also appear to contribute to this prejudice in males.     

Enhancing the salience of free speech rights increases differential perceived free speech protections for criminal acts against Black versus White targets

Hate crime charges offer enhanced sentences for prejudice‐motivated acts in recognition of the injury that extends beyond the victim to other members of the targeted group. The present study builds upon and extends previous work illuminating how anti‐Black prejudice influences application of free speech protections to justify criminal acts against Black (vs. White) targets, which subsequently reduces support for hate crime charges for the act by investigating the potential effects of environmental cues that increase the salience of free speech rights. The present work tested the main and interactive effects of act target (Black vs. White), anti‐Black prejudice, and the salience of freedom of speech on perceived free speech protections for a prejudice‐motivated criminal act and the consequent influence on support for hate crime charges. Replicating previous findings, greater anti‐Black prejudice predicted more perceived free speech protections for Black‐targeted acts, which predicted less support for hate crime charges. Low‐bias participants viewed Black‐ versus White‐targeted acts as less protected by free speech rights and more deserving of hate crime charges; high‐bias participants viewed the two acts similarly. Making the right to free speech (compared to protections from search and seizure) salient amplified differential perceptions of free speech protections based on prejudice and target group, which predicted support for hate crime charges. This work holds implications for justification processes and highlights the importance of studying culture‐specific values.     

Relatively Socially Acceptable Prejudice Within and Between Societies

Two studies investigated the relative social acceptability of certain prejudices within a society (Study 1) and between societies (Study 2), using (less) internal motivation to control prejudice as an indicator of social acceptability. In Study 1, White British participants reported less internal motivation to control prejudice against people with schizophrenia than against Black people. In Study 2, Jamaican participants reported less internal motivation to control anti‐homosexual prejudice than did either British participants or American participants. Other differences in motivation to control prejudice were smaller, absent, or at odds with this difference, indicating that differences in motivation to control anti‐homosexual prejudice were not solely due to cultural differences concerning motivation to control prejudice in general. Results are discussed in terms of novel findings, relevance to the literature and possible future research. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are the ethnically tolerant free of discrimination,prejudice and political intolerance?

We hypothesized that the ethnically tolerant (i.e., people who are anti‐ethnocentric and score very low on a measure of ethnocentrism) would perceive people with extremely incompatible values and beliefs as out‐groups and would engage in discrimination, prejudice and political intolerance against them. Experiments among Australian citizens in Studies 1 (N = 224) and 2 (N = 283) showed that the ethnically tolerant perceived supporters of a message in favour of mandatory detention of asylum seekers as out‐groups and consequently exhibited discrimination, prejudice and political intolerance against them. Study 3 with 265 U.S. citizens showed that, controlling for liberalism, ethnic tolerance led to prejudice against out‐groups. This was replicated with 522 UK citizens in Study 4, which also showed that social identity, and not moral conviction, mediated the link between ethnic tolerance and prejudice. The findings suggest that the ethnically tolerant can be discriminatory, prejudiced and politically intolerant against fellow humans.     

Mortality Salience and Perceptions of People with AIDS: Understanding the Role of Prejudice

Study 1 examined the perceived association of AIDS and death by showing that thinking about AIDS increased participants'; death-thought accessibility. Hypotheses about the consequences of this association for perceptions of people with AIDS were derived from terror management theory, which proposes that mortality salience increases derogation of those who threaten people's worldviews unless those worldviews oppose prejudice, in which case mortality salience can increase acceptance of people who are otherwise threatening. Consistent with these hypotheses, conservative participants had less favorable impressions (Study 2) and liberal participants had more favorable impressions (Study 3) of a target with AIDS following a death reminder. Study 4 suggested that the decrease in prejudice among liberals following mortality salience was a genuine decrease in prejudice (as indicated by responses to an unobtrusive attitude measure), not just an increase in the desire to appear nonprejudiced. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

How Do U.S. Christians and Atheists Stereotype One Another’s Moral Values?

Moral conflict between Christians and atheists is becoming increasingly heated amidst the U.S. “culture wars,” yet research has been mostly silent regarding how these groups stereotype one another’s moral values and beliefs. We used moral foundations theory to better understand the nature of such stereotypes. In Study 1, U.S. Christian and atheist participants completed measures of moral values from their own perspective as well as the perspectives of typical atheists and typical Christians. Whereas atheists believed their ingroup endorsed fairness/justice values more than Christians, Christians believed their ingroup endorsed all moral values more than atheists. Moreover, both groups held (often extremely) inaccurate stereotypes about the outgroup’s values. In Study 2, participants wrote explicitly about outgroup morality. Atheists typically described Christians more negatively than Christians described atheists, regardless of the moral foundation of concern. Also, Christians’ negative impressions drew primarily from the Authority foundation, and both groups drew heavily from the Care foundation in both their positive and negative depictions. Implications for addressing the growing conflict between Christians and atheists in the United States are discussed.     

Prejudice Against Muslim Australians: The Role of Values,Gender and Consensus

Data from an Australian community survey (n = 189) examining the predictors of prejudice against Muslim Australians were analysed. Using thematic analysis, we investigated the specific values our participants reported regarding their perceptions of Muslim Australians and Islam. We then investigated the relationship between prejudice against Muslim Australians, the most important value priorities given by our participants, and other prejudice‐related variables. After entry into a regression analysis, the participants high in prejudice were found to be significantly more likely to have lower educational levels and more right‐wing views. They were also significantly more likely to report high levels of national attitudes (i.e. stronger identification with Australian identity), concern about gender equality within the Muslim community, less concern about equality generally and report that Muslims were not conforming to Australian values. High prejudiced participants also scored higher in the reporting of negative media‐related beliefs, were more likely to perceive higher support in the community for their views than was the case and were more negative towards Muslim men than Muslim women. The implications for anti‐prejudice interventions are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Right-wing authoritarianism predicts prejudice against “homosexuals” but not “gay men and lesbians”

Can different social category labels for a single group be associated with different levels of prejudice — specifically, sexual prejudice? Some theorizing, and a pilot study in the present research, suggests that the label “homosexuals” carries more deviance-related connotations than does the label “gay men and lesbians.” Given that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) correlates positively with prejudice against groups stereotyped as deviant, it was hypothesized that RWA would predict greater prejudice against “homosexuals” than “gay men and lesbians” among heterosexual participants. Two studies supported this hypothesis and demonstrated that the effect was driven by both perceived threats to heterosexuals' values (i.e., symbolic threat; Study 1) and perceived fundamental differences between “homosexuals” and heterosexuals as social categories (i.e., psychological essentialism; Study 2). Implications for the factors that predict social categorization of and prejudice toward sexual minorities are discussed.     

Living under threat: Mutual threat perception drives anti‐Muslim and anti‐Western hostility in the age of terrorism

This research demonstrates a common psychology of outgroup hostility driven by perceived intergroup threat among three groups and seven cultural contexts: non‐Muslim Westerners, Muslims in Western societies, and Muslims in the Middle East. In Study 1, symbolic, but not realistic and terroristic threats, predicted non‐Muslim Norwegians' intentions to join anti‐Islamic movements. In Study 2, symbolic and realistic, but not terroristic threat, predicted non‐Muslim Americans' willingness to persecute Muslims. In Studies 3 and 4, symbolic threat predicted support and behavioral intentions against the West among Swedish and Turkish Muslims. Finally, in Study 5, a comparison demonstrated that symbolic and realistic threats had the same effects on violent intentions among non‐Muslim and Muslim Danes, and Muslims in Afghanistan. Meta‐analysis showed that symbolic threat was most strongly associated with intergroup hostility. Across studies, participants with high religious group identification experienced higher levels of threat. Implications for intergroup research and prejudice reduction are discussed.     

In Godlessness We Distrust: Using Social Psychology to Solve the Puzzle of Anti‐atheist Prejudice

Most people believe in a god of some sort. Nonetheless, there are hundreds of millions of atheists in the world, and they face considerable discrimination and prejudice. This is a puzzling form of prejudice: Atheists do not form a coherent group, they are individually inconspicuous, and they are not, in general, oppositional or threatening. Recent research in social, evolutionary, and cultural psychology, however, offers suggestions for solving the puzzle of anti‐atheist prejudice, in terms of both uncovering its psychological causes and also suggesting interventions for reducing it. Antipathy towards atheists derives specifically from moral distrust – to many people, belief in a watchful, moralizing god is seen as a uniquely powerful and perhaps necessary component of morality. Without religious belief, atheists are viewed as moral wildcards who cannot be trusted. This unique basis in turn implies specific ways in which distrust of atheists might be ameliorated.     

The Conscientiousness Paradox: Cultural Mindset Shapes Competence Perception

Studies comparing personality across cultures have found inconsistencies between self‐reports and measures of national character or behaviour, especially on evaluative traits such as Conscientiousness. We demonstrate that self‐perceptions and other‐perceptions of personality vary with cultural mindset, thereby accounting for some of this inconsistency. Three studies used multiple methods to examine perceptions of Conscientiousness and especially its facet Competence that most characterizes performance evaluations. In Study 1, Mainland Chinese reported lower levels of self‐efficacy than did Canadians, with the country effect partially mediated by Canadian participants' higher level of independent self‐construal. In Study 2, language as a cultural prime induced similar effects on Hong Kong bilinguals, who rated themselves as more competent and conscientious when responding in English than in Chinese. Study 3 demonstrated these same effects on ratings of both self‐perceived and observer‐perceived competence and conscientiousness, with participants changing both their competence‐communicating behaviours and self‐evaluations in response to the cultural primes of spoken language and ethnicity of an interviewer. These results converge to show that self‐perceptions and self‐presentations change to fit the social contexts shaped by language and culture. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Perspective and prejudice: antecedents and mediating mechanisms

The present work investigated mechanisms by which Whites' prejudice toward Blacks can be reduced (Study 1) and explored how creating a common ingroup identity can reduce prejudice by promoting these processes (Study 2). In Study 1, White participants who viewed a videotape depicting examples of racial discrimination and who imagined the victim's feelings showed greater decreases in prejudice toward Blacks than did those in the objective and no instruction conditions. Among the potential mediating affective and cognitive variables examined, reductions in prejudice were mediated primarily by feelings associated with perceived injustice. In Study 2, an intervention designed to increase perceptions of a common group identity before viewing the videotape, reading that a terrorist threat was directed at all Americans versus directed just at White Americans, also reduced prejudice toward Blacks through increases in feelings of injustice.     

European‐American children's intergroup attitudes about peer relationships

Intergroup attitudes were assessed in European‐American first grade (M=6.8 years) and fourth grade (M=9.9 years) boys and girls (N=94) to test hypotheses about implicit racial biases, perceptions of similarity between peer dyads, and judgments about cross‐race friendships. Two assessments, an ambiguous situations task and a perceptions of similarity task, were administered to all participants. Contrary to prior findings, participants did not display implicit racial biases when interpreting children's intentions to commit a negative moral transgression towards a peer. Implicit biases were revealed, however, when asking children to judge cross‐race friendship potential. The findings on children's similarity perceptions revealed that children focused on shared interests and race when judging similarity. Given that previous meta‐analyses of prejudice have pointed to cross‐race friendships as a significant predictor of a reduction in prejudice, these findings help to understand what may account for the relative infrequency of intergroup friendships in childhood. Further, the findings indicate the ways in which, implicit racial biases influence friendship decisions.     

A good story: Men's storytelling ability affects their attractiveness and perceived status

Three studies examined gender differences in the effect of storytelling ability on perceptions of a person's attractiveness as a short‐term and long‐term romantic partner. In Study 1, information about a potential partner's storytelling ability was provided. Study 2 participants read a good or poor story supposedly written by a potential partner. Results suggested that only women's attractiveness assessments of men as a long‐term date increased for good storytellers. Storytelling ability did not affect men's ratings of women nor did it affect ratings of short‐term partners. Study 3 suggested that the effect of storytelling ability on long‐term attractiveness for male targets may be mediated by perceived status. Storytelling ability appears to increase perceived status and thus helps men attract long‐term partners.     

Preference for consistency and value dissimilarities in dehumanization and prejudice toward asylum seekers in Australia

Recent research has highlighted the importance of differential attribution of uniquely human characteristics in dehumanization and prejudice. Relatively little is known, however, about the importance of perceiving dissimilarities between the ingroup and outgroup in different types of values (beyond prosocial values), or the role of preference for consistency (PFC). This study investigated values, perceived dissimilarities in values, and PFC, in dehumanization of and prejudice toward asylum seekers in Australia. Results from a survey of 140 Australians revealed a strong relationship between dehumanization and prejudice. Individuals with stronger conservation and self‐enhancement values, and greater perceived dissimilarity to asylum seekers on self‐transcendence and self‐enhancement values, dehumanized asylum seekers more and were more prejudiced toward them. The relationships between perceived self‐transcendence and self‐enhancement dissimilarities and prejudice were mediated by dehumanization, whereas PFC moderated the relationship between conservation value differences and dehumanization. These findings offer important insight into the conditions that promote dehumanization and prejudice, which may in turn help explain the negative perceptions of asylum seekers in Australia. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

I feel you feel what I feel: Perceived perspective‐taking promotes victims' conciliatory attitudes because of inferred emotions in the offender

In the context of bullying in a nursing workplace, we test the argument that an offender's perspective‐taking promotes victim conciliation, mediated by perceived perspective‐taking, that is, the extent to which the victim perceives the offender as taking their perspective. Perceived perspective‐taking facilitates the attribution of moral emotions (remorse, etc.) to the offender, thereby promoting conciliatory victim responses. However, perceived perspective‐taking would be qualified by the extent to which the severity of consequences expressed in the offender's perspective‐taking matches or surpasses the severity for the victim. In Studies 1 and 2 (Ns = 141 and 122, respectively), victims indicated greater trust and/or forgiveness when the offender had taken the victim's perspective. This was sequentially mediated by perceived perspective‐taking and victim's inference that the offender had felt moral emotions. As predicted, in Study 2 (but not Study 1), severity of consequences qualified victims' perceived perspective‐taking. Study 3 (N = 138) examined three potential mechanisms for the moderation by severity. Victims attributed greater perspective‐taking to the offender when the consequences were less severe than voiced by the offender, suggesting victims' appreciation of the offender's generous appraisal. Attributions of perspective‐taking and of moral emotions to the offender may play an important role in reconciliation processes. Key outcome: To the extent that victims perceive the offender as taking their perspective (perceived perspective‐taking), they infer that the offender feels more moral emotions, prompting victims to be more conciliatory. Perceived perspective‐taking benefits from the offender over‐stating the consequences to the victim.