1. Religion, Prejudice, & Group Characteristics
Mark J. Brandt
tbslaboratory.com
@mjpsp

2. 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

3. Traditional Perspective
Low/No Religiosity
Religiosity/
Fundamentalism
Dispositions
Open to Experience
Cognitive Complexity
Intolerant of Ambiguity
Preference for Order
Binding Moral Foundations

4. Traditional Perspective

5. Worldview Conflict Perspective
Evolutionary Models
e.g., Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005
Similarity-Liking
e.g., Byrne, 1971
Meaning Systems
e.g., Heine et al., 2006
People are motivated to defend values and worldviews
Prejudice/intolerance towards people with conflicting attitudes/worldviews is one strategy

6. Two Hypotheses
Traditional Hypothesis
Worldview Conflict Hypothesis

7. 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 non- fundamentalist groups

8. Similar to Fundamentalists Dissimilar to Fundamentalists
Study 1 - Methods
Similar to Fundamentalists
Dissimilar to Fundamentalists
Catholics
Atheists
Christians
Feminists
Tea Party
Gay men and Lesbians
Conservatives
Liberals

9. Study 1 - Results

10. 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

11. Study 2 - Results

13. Study 3 - Methods Mechanical Turk (N = 299)
Post-Critical Belief Scale (Duriez et al., 2005)
Religious
Symbolic
Literal
Disbelief

14. Study 3

15. Group Characteristics

16. Group Characteristics

17. 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
Status
Choice
(data from Brandt & Crawford, 2016, SPPS)
Samples means

18. Study 4 - Methods Asian American Gay Men and Lesbians
People on Welfare
Atheists
Hispanics
Poor People
Big Business
Illegal Immigrants
Rich People
Blacks
Labor Unions
Tea Party
Catholics
Liberals
The Military
Christians
Middle Class People
Whites
Conservatives
Mormons
Working Class People
Feminists
Muslims

19. Target groups nested in Participants
Study 4
Multilevel models
Target groups nested in Participants

20. Study 4
t = 14.3, p < .001

21. Study 4
t = 14.3, p < .001
t = -3.9, p < .001

22. Study 4
t = 14.3, p < .001
t = -3.9, p < .001
t = 0.9, p = .39

23. Take Homes Both believers & non-believers express prejudice
Both believers & non-believers find dissimilar groups threatening
Ideology is the primary group characteristic that matters

24. Thanks! collaborator studies 1-3 @mjpsp
Daryl van Tongeren
collaborator
studies 1-3
@mjpsp
tbslaboratory.com