1. Religiosity and gender as predictors of prejudice
Nino Javakhishvili, Irina Vardanashvili, Ana Makashvili
D. Uznadze Psychology Institute
Ilia State University
Edinburg, July 2017

2. Religiosity, Gender Religiosity – is positively linked to prejudice.
Contradictory findings.
(Scheepers, Gijsberts and Hello, 2002;Rowatt, LaBouff, Johnson, Froese, Tsang, 2009; Hall, Matz, Wood, 2010; Ugurlu, 2013)

3. Religiosity, Gender
Gender - males, compared to females, are more prone to being prejudiced.
Findings of multiple studies on gender are not consistent
(McFarland &Adelson, 1996; Altemayer, 1998; Herek, 2002; Hughes &Tuch, 2003; Parillo and Donoghue, 2005; McFarland, 2010; Javakhishvili, et al., 2012 )

4. 2 studies Both contain measures of prejudice
Both contain measures of religiosity (differ) and gender
Both conducted on students in Georgia

5. Study 1

6. 2 samples
Study 1 – 611 students from various universities in Tbilisi, capital city, Georgia
Mean age (SD=4.9)
177 (29%) - men, 434 (71%) - women
Study 2 – 528 students from various universities in Tbilisi, capital city, Georgia
Mean age (SD=1.9)
140(26%) - men, 388 (74%) – women

7. 2 procedures Study 1 – paper and pencil Study 2 – online
5 points Likert-scale

8. Measures of Prejudice Study 1
– to Abirians
– a fictitious group of people
– ethnic, religious, sexual

9. Measures of Prejudice Study 2
Catholic
Religious
Muslim
Gay
Sexual
Lesbian
Armenian
Ethnic
Greek
Wheelchair
Disabilities
Schizophrenia

10. Measures of prejudice Study 1- 8 items, loading on two factors
Bogardus social distance scale
Study 1- 8 items, loading on two factors
Chi-square=20.38, df=14; CFI=0.997, TLI=0.993
RMSEA=0.027, SRMR=0.018
Study 2 – 7 items, loading on six factors (less and more sensitive)
Chi-Square= df=1331; CFI=0.926, TLI=0.914
RMSEA=0.046, SRMR=0.043

11. Measures of Prejudice Factor 1: Would Marry
Would have as teacher of my child
Would have as my boss at work
More sensitive prejudice
Factor 2:
Would make friends
Would have as a neighbor
Would sit next in public transport
Would have as an acquaintance
Would have as a guest in my country
Less sensitive prejudice

12. Measures of Prejudice Factor 1 Religious minorities Factor 2
Less vs. more sensitive
Factor 1
Religious minorities
Factor 2
Sexual minorities
Factor 3
– ethnic minorities
(Armenians)
Factor 4
– ethnic minorities
(Greek)
Factor 5
– disabled (Schizophrenia)
Factor 6
– disabled
(Wheelchair) *

13. Measures of Religion
Study 1 – question: not at all religious – to very religious (10 points)
Study 2 - question: not at all religious – to very religious (7 points)

14. Results – Study 1
Level of religiosity significantly predicted both forms of prejudice:
more sensitive prejudice beta =.402, p=.000,
less sensitive prejudice beta =.300, p=.000.

15. Results – Study 1
Gender significantly predicts less sensitive prejudice, beta =.171, p=.000;
men and women tend to have similar attitudes when it comes to delicate relations with an out-group while the distinction comes into play with more distant relations

16. Results – Study 2
Gender is predictor of less sensitive types of prejudice except to those with schizophrenia
In addition, Gender is predictor of more sensitive types of prejudice for homosexuals
Gender is predictor of prejudice to Armenians and Disabled (wheelchair)

17. Results – Study 2 Religiosity is predictor of all types of prejudice
Religiosity and gender interact to predict prejudice to homosexuals/gays ß=.156, p=.001
Model is significant F (3, 524)= p=.000
R2=.219

18. Results – Study 2
Gender moderates effect of religiosity on prejudice to homosexuals/gays
Those who report to be more religious, show stronger prejudice and this relation is stronger for males

19. Results – Study 1
Religion as a mediator between traditional values and prejudice (both forms)
Traditional values: measured by Portrait Values Questionnaire-Revised (Schwartz, 2012):
It is important to him/her to maintain traditional values and ways of thinking
It is important to him/her to follow his family’s customs or the customs of a religion
It is important to him/her to honor the traditional practices of his culture.

20. Results – Study 1 Tradition Religion More sensitive prejudice
0.19 (0.30)
More sensitive
prejudice
Tradition
1.09
0.10
Religion
0.11

21. Results – Study 1 Tradition Religion Less sensitive prejudice
0.08 (0.18)
Less sensitive
prejudice
Tradition
1.09
0.09
Religion
0.10

22. Results – Both Studies Summing up:
Religiosity is a predictor for all types of prejudice – 1, 2
Gender moderates effect of religiosity on prejudice to homosexuals/gays – 2
Religiosity is a mediator between traditional values and prejudice - 1

23. Religion
the findings are consistent with the literature that show that level of religiosity is a predictor of prejudice (e.g., McFarland, 2010)

24. Results – Both Studies Summing up:
Gender is a predictor only for less sensitive prejudice – 1, 2
Gender is a predictor for more sensitive prejudice to homosexuals (gays to blame) as well – 2
Gender is a predictor for prejudice to those with wheelchairs – generally less sensitive group - 2

25. Gender
the findings are consistent with the studies that show that males, compared to females, are more likely to be prejudiced (e.g., McFarland, 2010)
and with those studies, too, that argue that gender does not account for significant difference in negative attitudes (e.g., Hughes &Tuch, 2003; Javakhishvili et al., 2012).

26. Thank You