For Better or Worse: Fundamentalists' Attitudes Toward Outgroups as a Function of Exposure to Authoritative Religious Texts

Fundamentalism not only predicts prejudice toward outgroups but also prosociality toward proximal targets and ingroups. Taking things a step further, we hypothesized that because fundamentalists tend to show submission to religious authority, their attitudes toward unknown targets and outgroups may vary significantly depending on the nature of the authoritative religious texts to which they are exposed. In three studies using hypothetical scenarios, the association between fundamentalism and prosocial attitudes (a) became negative after exposure to a violent biblical text (Study 1; unknown targets), (b) reversed from negative to positive after reading a prosocial biblical text (Study 2; negligent targets), and (c) became negative or positive following a violent versus prosocial biblical text (Study 3; atheist target). Additional results confirmed the uniqueness of fundamentalism compared to general religiosity, quest orientation, and authoritarianism, regarding such dependency upon religious authority. Findings also support the mediating roles of reported submissiveness to religious teachings and perceived symbolic threat.     

Predicting Prejudice from Religious Fundamentalism and Right‐Wing Authoritarianism: A Multiple‐Regression Approach

In a study designed to investigate the respective roles of religious fundamentalism and right‐wing authoritarianism as predictors of prejudice against racial minorities and homosexuals, participants (47 males, 91 females) responded to a series of questionnaire measures of these constructs. Data were analyzed using multiple regression. Consistent with previous research, authoritarianism was a significant and strong positive predictor of both forms of prejudice. With authoritarianism statistically controlled, however, fundamentalism emerged as a significant negative predictor of racial prejudice but a positive predictor of homosexual prejudice. In a second study, we conducted parallel multiple regressions using the correlations from two previously published studies. The Study 1 results were replicated exactly, except that fundamentalism was a nonsignificant predictor of homosexual prejudice. We interpret the results as evidence that Christian fundamentalism consists of a second major component other than authoritarianism—related to Christian belief content—that is inversely related to some forms of prejudice (including racial prejudice) but not others (e.g., homosexual prejudice).     

Experimental Studies in Ocular Behavior: II. Ocular Inadequacies in Epileptic Patients

The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values and the Brown Modification of the Thouless Test of Religious Orthodoxy were administered to 120 male and female students in introductory psychology. Measures of anxiety, self-esteem, authoritarianism, and humanitarianism were also administered to the Ss in an effort to determine whether the two measures of religiosity would yield different personality and attitude profiles of the “religious” individual. A significant positive correlation was found between authoritarianism and the Thouless Test and between humanitarianism and the Study of Values religious measure. All other correlations involving the two measures of religiosity were found to be nonsignificant. These findings lend support to the notion that using two divergent measures of religiosity does result in the formation of different profiles of the “religious” individual.     

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.     

Development and Initial Validation of an Implicit Measure of Religiousness‐Spirituality

An implicit measure of religiousness‐spirituality (RS) was constructed and used in two studies. In Study 1, undergraduates completed a Religiousness‐Spirituality Implicit Association Test (RS‐IAT) and several self‐report measures of RS and related constructs (e.g., religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism). Informants rated the participants’ RS. The RS‐IAT was internally consistent. Implicit RS correlated positively with self‐reported RS, spiritual transcendence, spiritual experiences, religious fundamentalism, and intrinsic religiousness. Informant ratings correlated positively with participants’ self‐reported religiousness but not implicit RS. In Study 2, implicit RS accounted for unique variability in self‐reported attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women when controlling for self‐reported religiousness and right‐wing authoritarianism. These findings demonstrate that an implicit measure of trait RS explains some variability in attitudes that self‐report measures do not. An implicit measure of RS could advance the scientific study of religion beyond what is known from self‐report measures.     

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.     

Religious ideology, a neglected variable

Comments on an article by J. T. Jost, which presented interesting data relating some personality dimensions to voting patterns in the last three U.S. presidential elections. R. K. Unger is surprised that in his extensive review of the role of ideology, Jost ignored the role of religious ideology in political attitudes and voting behavior. There is ample evidence that level of religious observance (sometimes labeled religiosity, hierarchical religious beliefs, or religious fundamentalism) played a role in 2004 and earlier presidential elections. The relationship between religious ideology and political attitudes is correlational, and one needs to look further for an explanation of their impact. A number of studies indicate relationships between religious fundamentalism and what Jost has termed "system-justifying ideologies." Unger suggests that religiosity has been largely ignored by psychologists interested in social and political behaviors. It is quite possible that religiosity is related to the various personality dimensions discussed by Jost. But we cannot learn more about these potential connections if we continue to ignore the importance of religious ideology as a psychological variable.     

Who Believes in a Male God? Ideological Beliefs and Gendered Conceptualizations of God

Recent studies have explored whether certain conceptualizations of God are associated with various attitudes and beliefs. In the current study, we examined the relationship between gendered God concepts and the belief that God is involved in one’s life and religious-related rigid ideologies (i.e., religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism [RWA]). Across two studies, one conducted with religious students at a Jesuit university and the other with a national sample, we found that individuals who believed God to be male were more likely to believe that God had more control and involvement in their life, had higher levels of religious fundamentalism and higher levels of RWA-Aggression (Study 1 and 2), RWA–Submission (Study 1 and 2), and RWA–Conventionalism (Study 2) than individuals with other gendered or nongendered conceptualizations of God. Implications of the broader impact that gendered God concepts have on social and political domains are explored. Last, limitations and future research directions are discussed.     

Religious Fundamentalism and Limited Prosociality as a Function of the Target

Two distinct research traditions have established that (a) religiosity implies prosocial tendencies, though limited to proximal targets, and (b) religious fundamentalism (RF) relates to prejudice, often because of underlying right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA). Through two studies, we investigated the idea that RF, due to underlying religiosity, also predicts prosociality that is limited to proximal rather than distal targets. Specifically, we found that RF, unlike RWA and because of religiosity, predicted prosociality towards a nonfeminist but not a feminist target in need (Experiment 1) and willingness to help friends but not unknown people in need in the same hypothetical situations (Experiment 2). Moreover, like RWA, RF implied negative attitudes towards the feminist. This limited, not extended, prosociality of people scoring high on RF was in contrast with their self‐perceptions of being universally altruistic. Fundamentalism seems to combine religiosity's qualities (in‐group prosociality) with authoritarianism's defects (out‐group derogation).     

Religiosity as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

In this study, the author examines the association between authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), and religiosity. She tested these associations in three sociopolitical contexts (i.e., Italy, Finland, and Estonia) based on representative samples. In all three countries, religious people were found to be more authoritarian and less socially dominant. Dallago, Cima, Roccato, Ricolfi, and Mirisola (2008) showed that religiosity decreases the correlation between SDO and authoritarianism in Italy. Their results are replicated in this study, using a more advanced measure of religiosity. The author also obtained cross-cultural confirmation in Finland. In both countries, she found hardly any relation between authoritarianism and SDO at high levels of religiosity; moderate relations were found at moderate levels of religiosity, and strong associations were found amongst nonreligious respondents. The association between authoritarianism and SDO was not influenced by religiosity in Estonia, a country with a history of communism and a high secularization rate.     

The relationship between intelligence and multiple domains of religious belief: Evidence from a large adult US sample

High levels of religiosity have been linked to lower levels of intelligence in a number of recent studies. These results have generated both controversy and theoretical interest. Here in a large sample of US adults we address several issues that restricted the generalizability of these previous results. We measured six dimensions of religiosity (rather than just one or two), along with a multi-scale instrument to assess general intelligence. We also controlled for the influence of the personality trait openness on facets of religious belief and practice. The results indicated that lower intelligence is most strongly associated with higher levels of fundamentalism, but also modestly predicts central components of religiosity such as a sense of religious identification and private religious practice. Secondly, we found that a higher level of openness - often assumed to lead to lower religiosity - is weakly associated with reduced fundamentalism but with increased religious mindfulness, private religious practice, religious support, and spirituality. These new results provide a framework for understanding the links between reasoning and faith.     

Religious Fundamentalism as a Predictor of Prejudice: A Two-Component Model

The present study aims to determine whether the empirical relationship between religious fundamentalism and prejudice can be accounted for in terms of the mutually opposing effects of Christian orthodoxy and right-wing authoritarianism using multiple regression. Three separate samples (total n = 320) completed measures of religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, Christian orthodoxy, ethnic prejudice, and homosexual prejudice. Consistent with previous research, fundamentalism (1) was essentially unrelated to ethnic prejudice when considered alone; (2) was positively related to ethnic prejudice when orthodoxy was statistically controlled; and (3) was negatively related to ethnic prejudice when authoritarianism was statistically controlled. Finally, when both authoritarianism and orthodoxy were controlled simultaneously, fundamentalism was again unrelated to prejudice, whereas orthodoxy was negatively related and authoritarianism positively related. In contrast, fundamentalism was a significant positive predictor of prejudice against gays and lesbians irrespective of whether authoritarianism and/or orthodoxy were statistically controlled.     

A re-examination of religious fundamentalism: positive implications for coping

The majority of the research on religious fundamentalism explores its negative implications. Religious coping theory provides an opportunity to examine both positive and negative implications of fundamentalism. The present study incorporated various advanced methodologies utilised in the religious coping literature (mediation analyses, hierarchical regression procedures, and longitudinal design) to assess the relationship between religious fundamentalism and religious coping in 723 American college students. Religious fundamentalism was associated with a number of religious coping strategies that have positive implications and inversely related to religious coping with negative associations. Fundamentalism predicted religious coping over and above right-wing authoritarianism and religious orthodoxy. The religious coping methods mediated the relationship between religious fundamentalism and adjustment to stress both concurrently and over time. Limitations of the current study and suggestions for future research are offered.     

Searching for certainty: Religious beliefs and intolerance toward value-violating groups

Religiosity has been consistently linked to prejudice toward a variety of outgroups. This article proposes that this is the case only when religiosity reflects a specific aspect of seeking guidance and security in daily practices and complex sociocultural norms. Outgroups that challenge the epistemic certainty that belief in God provides are rejected in an effort to protect this certainty. The results from two studies found that uncertainty avoidance was related to belief in God and this belief mediated the relationship between uncertainty avoidance and intolerance within the context of general human rights (Study 1), and the derogation of value-violating groups (e.g., homosexuals or followers of other religions) but not of groups that pose no threat to religious values (old or poor people) (Study 2). The interpretative dimension of religiosity (i.e., the way in which people process religious content) is not connected to security seeking, as reflected in the lack of a correlation with uncertainty avoidance and with different prejudice measures. The results are discussed in relation to past research on religiosity and prejudice, and suggest that for people who avoid uncertainty, only those types of religious beliefs that provide a sense of certainty are linked with intolerance toward value-violating groups.     

Authoritarianism,Religious Fundamentalism,Quest, and Prejudice

Five studies of university students and their parents were carried out to investigate the relationships among right-wing authoritarianism, various indices of religious orientation, and prejudice. Measures of religious fundamentalism, and religious quest, developed for this research, proved to be psychometrically sound, and were good discriminators between prejudiced and unprejudiced persons, across a variety of different measures of prejudice and authoritarian aggression. Scores on both Religious Fundamentalism and Religious Quest scales also were correlated strongly with right-wing authoritarianism and the Christian Orthodoxy scale, although orthodoxy itself tended not to be correlated with prejudice. Apparently, religious fundamentalism and nonquesting are linked with authoritarianism and prejudice toward a wide variety of minority groups. Possible explanations for these relationships are discussed.     

The Influence of Religious Fundamentalism,Right-Wing Authoritarianism,and Christian Orthodoxy on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals

The goal of this study was to examine relations among dimensions of religiosity and explicit and implicit attitudes about homosexuals. Implicit attitudes were measured using the Implicit Association Test, an instrument that assesses attitudes about objects, persons, or groups, indirectly via participants' response times to words that are paired with symbols (e.g., “gay” and “straight” couples). Participants also completed explicit measures of religious fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, right-wing authoritarianism, and attitudes toward homosexuals. With respect to explicit attitudes, the results were consistent with previous research. Religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism predicted negative attitudes toward homosexuals, whereas Christian orthodoxy predicted more positive attitudes. In contrast, right-wing authoritarianism was the only significant predictor of implicit attitudes. People who scored high on a measure of right-wing authoritarianism had more negative explicit and implicit attitudes toward homosexuals than did people who scored low. Right-wing authoritarianism appears to play an important role in predicting both explicit and implicit attitudes toward homosexuals.     

Beyond dogmatism: The need for closure as related to religion

Our theoretical assumption is that behind the dogmatism-religion positive but not systematic relation, a clearer one may exist between religion and need for closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). A positive association of religiosity with need for closure was hypothesized (except with the decisiveness facet). Subjects ( n = 239) were administered the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS), the Religious Fundamentalism Scale and a two-dimensional religiosity scale. Religious fundamentalism was positively correlated with the total NFCS, preference for order and predictability. Classic religiosity predicted high need for closure (all facets except decisiveness). However, spirituality-emotional religion was associated with low close-mindedness and low decisiveness but still high discomfort with ambiguity. Discussion includes arguments favouring the usefulness of the need for closure construct for understanding many aspects of religious personality (e.g. dogmatism, authoritarianism, prejudice, multiple conversions, distinction between permanence in order-closure and urgency for closure).     

Perceptions of Religious and Nonreligious Targets: Exploring the Effects of Perceivers' Religious Fundamentalism

While research has shown that religious individuals are perceived as being more moral than the nonreligious, the present studies suggest that these findings are affected by in‐group bias. Participants low and high in religious fundamentalism (RF) were asked to form an impression of a target's moral and social dimensions. The target's religious identity was presented either explicitly (in Studies 1 and 2) or implicitly (Study 3). Participants high in RF consistently rated the religious target more favorably than the nonreligious target on both dimensions. In contrast, LF individuals' morality ratings did not differ as a function of target religiosity across all 3 studies. Our results suggest that future research exploring the religion–morality link must control for perceiver religiosity.     

Does peace have a prayer? The effect of mortality salience, compassionate values, and religious fundamentalism on hostility toward out-groups

Religious fundamentalism has been shown to be associated with higher levels of prejudice, ethnocentrism, and militarism, in spite of the compassionate values promoted by the religious faiths that most fundamentalists believe in. Based on terror management theory, we hypothesized that priming these compassionate values would encourage a shift toward less support for violent solutions to the current Middle Eastern conflict, especially when they are combined with reminders of one’s mortality. Study 1 demonstrated that among Americans, religious fundamentalism was associated with greater support for extreme military interventions, except when participants were reminded of their mortality and primed with compassionate religious values. The combination of mortality salience and compassionate religious values led to significant decreases in support for such interventions among high but not low fundamentalists. Study 2 replicated this finding and showed that it depends on the association of the compassionate values with an authoritative religious source; presentation of these values in a secular context had no effect on fundamentalists. Study 3 replicated these effects in a sample of Iranian Shiite Muslims: although a reminder of death increased anti-Western attitudes among participants primed with secular compassionate values, it decreased anti-Western attitudes among those primed with compassionate values from the Koran.     

“If You Love Me Keep My Commandments”: Religiosity Increases Preference for Rule-Based Moral Arguments

Two experiments demonstrated that religiosity affects the way people resolve moral dilemmas. Participants were presented a series of immoral actions and were asked to justify the wrongness of the action by appealing to either the violation of a rule (rule-based argument) or the negative consequences resulting from the action (outcome-based argument). In Study 1, it was shown both among British and American samples that religious individuals preferred rule-based moral arguments to consequentialist moral arguments more than nonreligious individuals, and covariance with political conservatism did not account for this effect. Study 2 replicated these results with revisions to the materials and extended measures. In this study, dimensions of religiosity—particularly Christian Orthodoxy—predicted rule-based morality independent of a personal need for structure, need for cognition, and right-wing authoritarianism. These results imply that religious individuals who are committed to orthodox religious teaching display a deontological style of morality for reasons that extend beyond a need for structure, cognitive simplicity, or submission to authority.