Framing (implicitly) matters: The role of religion in attitudes toward immigrants and Muslims in Denmark

Denmark is currently experiencing the highest immigration rate in its modern history. Population surveys indicate that negative public attitudes toward immigrants actually stem from attitudes toward their (perceived) Islamic affiliation. We used a framing paradigm to investigate the explicit and implicit attitudes of Christian and Atheist Danes toward targets framed as Muslims or as immigrants. The results showed that explicit and implicit attitudes were more negative when the target was framed as a Muslim, rather than as an immigrant. Interestingly, implicit attitudes were qualified by the participants’ religion. Specifically, analyses revealed that Christians demonstrated more negative implicit attitudes toward immigrants than Muslims. Conversely, Atheists demonstrated more negative implicit attitudes toward Muslims than Atheists. These results suggest a complex relationship between religion, and implicit and explicit prejudice. Both the religious affiliation of the perceiver and the perceived religious affiliation of the target are key factors in social perception.     

Religion and Prejudice Toward Immigrants and Refugees: A Meta-Analytic Review

ABSTRACT

Religion is often a driving force in negative attitudes; however, in the specific case of migrant-based attitudes, research has produced conflicting findings. That is, religion can paradoxically facilitate either tolerance or intolerance toward this group. In light of these inconsistent findings, we conducted a meta-analytic review to estimate the effect size of this relationship with two major aims—first, to explore differences as a function of how religion was operationalised, and second, to explore differences in the target migrant-type (e.g., differences in religion-based attitudes toward immigrants and refugees/asylum seekers). Our search strategy was applied to PsycINFO, EBSCO Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, Web of Science, PsycEXTRA, and ProQuest Central for peer-reviewed English language studies and made calls for unpublished data through relevant professional bodies. This search strategy yielded 37 records (including 43 studies; N = 472,688). Religion was quantified in two ways: either as categorical religious affiliations (k = 60) or as individual differences in self-reported religiosity (k = 30). The meta-analyses revealed that religion quantified as affiliation, but not religiosity, was related to negative migrant attitudes. Specifically, religiously affiliated samples report more negative attitudes than nonreligious affiliated samples, and this effect was often stronger when the target groups were refugees rather than immigrants. In addition, analyses revealed that Muslims have more negative attitudes toward migrants than Christians. Religiosity was unrelated to negative attitudes. These findings are discussed in light of rising antimigrant attitudes.     

Patterns and Personality Correlates of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Christians and Muslims

We explored implicit and explicit attitudes toward Muslims and Christians within a predominantly Christian sample in the United States. Implicit attitudes were assessed with the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a computer program that recorded reaction times as participants categorized names (of Christians and Muslims) and adjectives (pleasant or unpleasant). Participants also completed self-report measures of attitudes toward Christians and Muslims, and some personality constructs known to correlate with ethnocentrism (i.e., right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, impression management, religious fundamentalism, intrinsic-extrinsic-quest religious orientations). Consistent with social identity theory, participants' self-reported attitudes toward Christians were more positive than their self-reported attitudes toward Muslims. Participants also displayed moderate implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims. This IAT effect could also be interpreted as implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians. A slight positive correlation between implicit and explicit attitudes was found. As self-reported anti-Arab racism, social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and religious fundamentalism increased, self-reported attitudes toward Muslims became more negative. The same personality variables were associated with more positive attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims on the self-report level, but not the implicit level.     

The contact hypothesis revisited: status bias in the reduction of implicit prejudice in the United States and Lebanon

Although 50 years of research demonstrate that friendly intergroup contact reduces intergroup prejudice, the findings are based solely on self-reported, explicit prejudice. In two parallel experiments examining intergroup contact and prejudice-between Whites and Blacks in the United States (Experiment 1) and between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon (Experiment 2)-we examined whether intergroup status differences moderate contact effects on implicit prejudice, as well as explicit prejudice. Both experiments replicated the standard effect of contact on explicit prejudice. They also demonstrated that intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice among low-status groups. In Experiment 1, the implicit prejudice of Blacks toward Whites (but not Whites toward Blacks) was reduced as a function of friendly contact. In Experiment 2, the implicit prejudice of Muslims toward Christians (but not Christians toward Muslims) was reduced as a function of friendly contact.     

Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: revisiting the ideologies of prejudice

Two studies investigated relationships among individual differences in implicit and explicit prejudice, right-wing ideology, and rigidity in thinking. The first study examined these relationships focusing on White Americans' prejudice toward Black Americans. The second study provided the first test of implicit ethnocentrism and its relationship to explicit ethnocentrism by studying the relationship between attitudes toward five social groups. Factor analyses found support for both implicit and explicit ethnocentrism. In both studies, mean explicit attitudes toward out groups were positive, whereas implicit attitudes were negative, suggesting that implicit and explicit prejudices are distinct; however, in both studies, implicit and explicit attitudes were related (r = .37, .47). Latent variable modeling indicates a simple structure within this ethnocentric system, with variables organized in order of specificity. These results lead to the conclusion that (a) implicit ethnocentrism exists and (b) it is related to and distinct from explicit ethnocentrism.     

The moderating role of socially desirable responding in implicit–explicit attitudes toward asylum seekers

Implicit and explicit attitudes correlate under certain conditions and researchers are interested in the moderating factors of this relationship. This paper explored the role of socially desirable responding in this relationship by testing the hypothesis that impression management (IM; i.e., deliberate response modification) and self‐deceptive enhancement (SDE; i.e., positive self‐bias) play moderating roles in the relationship of implicit–explicit attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia. Seventy‐four students responded to a battery of measures and the results revealed that IM (but not SDE) moderated this relationship to the extent that higher IM scores weakened the correspondence between implicit and explicit attitude scores. This suggests that attitudes toward asylum seekers might be susceptible to socially desirable response tendencies and in combination with the finding that IM was negatively related to explicit attitudes, it is argued that self‐presentation concerns result in the deliberate attenuation of reported negative explicit attitudes.     

Voting “Against Islamization”? How Anti‐Islamic Right‐Wing,Populist Political Campaign Ads Influence Explicit and Implicit Attitudes Toward Muslims as Well as Voting Preferences

We explore the effects of anti‐Islamic right‐wing, populist political campaign ads on voting intention for a right‐wing populist party using a quota‐based online experiment (N = 174). Additionally, we investigate implicit attitudes (i.e., automatic affective associations) and explicit attitudes (i.e., overtly expressed evaluations) toward Muslims as underlying mechanisms of these effects. We find that exposure to the political campaign ads prompts explicit hostile attitudes toward Muslims mediated by implicit attitudes. Explicit attitudes in turn shape voting intention. Moreover, implicit attitudes toward Muslims predict voting preference beyond the influence of explicit attitudes. Thus, resentments toward Muslims may foster voters’ support for anti‐Islamic right‐wing populist parties even “under the radar” of conscious awareness. In sum, this study demonstrates for the first time the entire process of right‐wing, populist political campaign ads’ effects on voting preferences via implicit and explicit attitudes toward Muslims.     

“I'm Not Prejudiced,but . . .”: Compensatory Egalitarianism in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary

The historic 2008 Democratic presidential primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton posed a difficult choice for egalitarian White voters, and many commentators speculated that the election outcome would reflect pitting the effects of racism against sexism ( Steinem, 2008 ). Because self‐reported prejudices may be untrustworthy, we used the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to assess White adults’ (1) condemnation of prejudices, and (2) attitudes toward the candidates in relation to voting decisions, as part of an online survey. Results supported the proposed compensatory egalitarianism process, such that Whites’ voting choice was consistent with their implicit candidate preference, but in an effort to remain egalitarian, participants compensated for this preference by automatically condemning prejudice toward the other candidate's group. Additional findings showed that this process was moderated by participants’ ethnicity and level of prejudice, as expected. Specifically, compensatory egalitarianism occurred primarily among Whites and individuals low in explicit prejudice. Implications for candidate support, aversive racism theory, and implicit compensation processes are discussed.     

The “Making and Unmaking” of Prejudice Against Australian Muslims and Gay Men and Lesbians: The Role of Religious Development and Fundamentalism

Despite the growing international interest in the relation between religion and prejudice, there has been a dearth of studies conducted within Australia. We used the Faith Development Scale (FDS) to examine the relation between religious maturity and attitudes toward Muslims and toward gay men and lesbians in an Australian context using a sample of churchgoers from the Perth metropolitan area (N = 139). Respondents who scored lower on the FDS were more prejudiced toward both target groups than were high scorers. Furthermore, participants who scored lower on the FDS were more prejudiced against gay men and lesbians than they were against Muslim Australians. The FDS was a better predictor of attitudes toward the two groups than was the Quest Scale. Contrary to overseas studies, we found that religious fundamentalists held more prejudiced attitudes toward gay men and lesbians than toward those of a different religion (Australian Muslims). Right-wing political orientation was also found to be predictive of prejudice against Australian Muslims and against gay men and lesbians independently of religious development. Results suggest that religious maturity, as well as fundamentalism and right-wing political views, plays an important role in the “making” or “unmaking” of prejudice against Australian Muslims and against gay men and lesbians. Evidence is presented that suggests that the Quest Scale and the FDS are measuring different aspects of religious development.     

The Relationship Between Religious Orientation,Right-Wing Authoritarianism,and Implicit Sexual Prejudice

The relationship between intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religious orientations, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and implicit and explicit attitudes toward homosexual individuals were examined within a sample of predominantly Protestant college students in the United States. Implicit attitudes were measured with the Implicit Association Test, a computer program that recorded reaction times as participants categorized symbols (of heterosexual and homosexual individuals) and adjectives (good or bad words). Participants displayed fairly negative implicit and explicit attitudes toward homosexual individuals (i.e., sexual prejudice). Intrinsic religious orientation uniquely predicted increased explicit sexual prejudice (when extrinsic, quest, and impression management were statistically controlled), and RWA appeared to mediate this effect. In contrast, the positive relationship between intrinsic religion and implicit sexual prejudice did not disappear when controlling for RWA. Although RWA seemed to be related to self-reports of prejudice, intrinsic religious orientation was uniquely related to automatic negative attitudes toward homosexual individuals.     

Imagined contact can be more effective for participants with stronger initial prejudices

Imagined contact is an intervention that combines the prejudice‐reduction of intergroup contact with the easy, low‐risk application of imagery‐based techniques. Accordingly, it can be applied where direct contact is difficult or risky. However, a possible limitation of imagined contact is that it may not be effective for participants with stronger initial prejudices, which would limit its usefulness and application. Two experiments (N₁ = 103, N₂ = 95) investigated whether initial prejudice moderated imagined contact's effects on explicit attitudes, behavioral intentions (Experiment 1), implicit attitudes, and petition‐signing behaviors (Experiment 2) toward two different outgroups. In both experiments, imagined contact was more effective when initial prejudice was higher. Implications for imagined contact theory and application are discussed.     

Trust and Trustworthiness of Christians,Muslims, and Atheists/Agnostics in the United States

Trust, a cornerstone of economic development, is promoted within religions. In a randomized controlled trial, we examine how trust and trustworthiness vary across religions (Christianity and Islam), religiosity, and atheists/agnostics in the United States. Three novel findings emerge. First, Christians are trusted more than Muslims and nonbelievers, which is due to a Christian ingroup bias––Christians trust Christians more than they trust Muslims and nonbelievers, while Muslims and nonbelievers trust all groups the same. Second, religiosity matters to trust. Religious people trust those of higher religiosity more, but only if they are of the same religion. In contrast, nonbelievers trust people of higher religiosity less. Third, trustworthiness among nonbelievers is somewhat lower than that of the religious, especially toward Christians. We speculate that the lower reciprocity originates in the prejudice toward nonbelievers. Our results may help explain discrimination against Muslims and nonbelievers, given that discrimination often originates in distrust.     

Fostering Mutual Understanding Among Muslims and Non-Muslims Through Counterstereotypical Information: An Educational versus Metacognitive Approach

Fostering interfaith tolerance may help to reduce religious tensions. The authors examined the attitudes of Christians, Muslims, and people with no religious affiliation toward different religions and explored whether their negative attitudes toward other faiths could be ameliorated. Participants (N = 298) were asked about their attitudes toward Judaism, Christianity, and Islam before they were randomly assigned to either a metacognitive intervention or an educational intervention. Information was conveyed in a simple narrative form in the educational condition. In the metacognitive condition, participants were first asked apparently simple questions that frequently elicited incorrect responses. This was followed by corrective information. Both Christian and Muslim participants appraised their own religion as the most peaceful and tolerant. The educational approach was more effective in reducing stereotypes about Islam among non-Muslims, whereas the metacognitive approach was more successful in lessening prejudice about Christianity among Muslims. Muslims displayed overconfidence in their responses related to religious topics.     

Differentiating Islamophobia: Introducing a New Scale to Measure Islamoprejudice and Secular Islam Critique

Since 2001 there has been a steadily increasing awareness of discrimination against Muslims based on their religion. Despite the widespread use of the neologism Islamophobia to refer to this phenomenon, this term has been harshly criticized for confounding prejudiced views of Muslims with a legitimate critique of Muslim practices based on secular grounds. In the current research a scale was developed to differentiate Islamoprejudice (based on the influential Islamophobia definition of the British Runnymede Trust) and Secular Critique of Islam. Across two studies, Islamoprejudice was related to explicit and implicit prejudice, right‐wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation whereas Secular Critique was unrelated to any forms of prejudice but negatively related to religiosity and authoritarianism. The two scales were mostly independent or only moderately related. Importantly, the new Islamoprejudice scale outperformed all other scales in predicting actual opposition versus support for a heatedly debated, newly built mosque. These results demonstrate the necessity to differentiate between Islamoprejudice and Secular Critique in future research on attitudes towards Islam.     

Exploring patterns of explicit and implicit anti‐gay attitudes in Muslims and Atheists

Research into the relationship between religion and anti‐gay attitudes frequently focuses on Christianity. We explored the role of religiosity dimensions, previous contact, and factors in the dual‐process motivation model as predictors of explicit and implicit anti‐gay attitudes in samples of Muslims and Atheists. The explicit and implicit attitudes of Muslims were more negative than the attitudes of Atheists. Explicit attitudes were more negative towards gay men than lesbians; implicit attitudes were negative towards gay men but were unexpectedly positive towards lesbians. In regression analyses, religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religious orientations (Study 1), and contact and right‐wing authoritarianism (Study 2) were strong significant predictors of explicit anti‐gay attitudes. Interestingly, none of the factors of interest predicted implicit anti‐gay attitudes. These findings reveal a strong link between Islam and explicit anti‐gay attitudes, but suggest that the relationship between religion and implicit anti‐gay attitudes may be more complex than previously thought.     

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.     

Gender differences in implicit prejudice

In three experiments (n=131), we examined gender differences in implicit (and explicit) racial prejudice employing priming of immigrant and Swedish facial photographs without attention or without awareness. Implicit prejudice was defined as the degree of negativity expressed toward a person described in a subsequent ambiguous story in an impression formation task. We found, contrary to our hypothesis, that women displayed systematically higher implicit prejudice than men in all three experiments, although men scored higher on explicit prejudice than women. The results are discussed against the background of related prejudice research, the dissociation of implicit and explicit prejudice, and gender differences in cognitive functioning, especially in the processing of pictorial stimuli.     

Don't judge a living book by its cover: effectiveness of the living library intervention in reducing prejudice toward Roma and LGBT people

In Hungary, prejudices toward Roma and the LGBT community are highly salient and explicit in public opinion, the media, and in the political discourse. The present study examined the effectiveness of the Living Library prejudice reduction intervention—in which participants as “Readers” have engaging contact with living “Books” who are trained volunteers from the Roma and LGBT communities. In a pre‐post intervention study with high school students (N = 105), results suggest that the Living Library intervention reduced participants’ scores on multiple measures of prejudice. The Living Library intervention appeared to be effective among both those participants whose friends endorsed prejudice or more tolerant attitudes toward Roma and LGBT people. In sum, Living Library appears to be a useful method for reducing prejudice in contexts which are characterized by strong negative attitudes toward these different groups.     

Social antecedents of children's implicit prejudice: Direct contact,extended contact,explicit and implicit teachers' prejudice

Recent research has shown that children display implicit prejudice at least by age six (Baron & Banaji, 2006). In the present study, we investigated some potential antecedents of children's implicit intergroup attitudes: direct contact, extended contact, explicit and implicit racial attitudes of children's favourite teacher. Participants were Italian elementary school students. Results showed that, unexpectedly, direct contact increased negative implicit attitudes toward immigrants; extended contact reduced implicit prejudice only among those with less direct contact experiences. In addition, teachers' implicit (but not explicit) prejudice predicted children's implicit prejudice. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed, together with the importance of the social environment in the formation of children's implicit intergroup attitudes.     

A Clash of Civilizations? Preferences for Religious Political Leaders in 86 Nations

Huntington claimed that today's major conflicts are most likely to erupt between religiously defined “civilizations,” in particular between Christianity and Islam. Using World Values Surveys from 86 nations, we examine differences between Christians and Muslims in preferences for religious political leaders. The results suggest a marked difference between Muslims and Christians in their attitudes toward religious politicians, with Muslims more favorable by 20 points out of 100. Devoutness, education, degree of government corruption, and status as a formerly Communist state account for the difference. Little support is found for the clash‐of‐civilizations hypothesis. Instead, we find that a clash of individual beliefs—between the devout and the secular—along with enduring differences between the more developed and less developed world explains the difference between Islam and Christianity with regards to preferences for religious political leaders.