Of Christians, Jews, and Muslims: When gender is unspecified, the default is men.

IF 2.2 1区 哲学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychology of Religion and Spirituality Pub Date : 2023-04-06 DOI:10.1037/rel0000500
Asma Ghani, Sa-kiera T. J. Hudson, Haniya Rumaney, Jim Sidanius
{"title":"Of Christians, Jews, and Muslims: When gender is unspecified, the default is men.","authors":"Asma Ghani, Sa-kiera T. J. Hudson, Haniya Rumaney, Jim Sidanius","doi":"10.1037/rel0000500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Discrimination against members of non-majority religious groups is widespread, often due to negative stereotypes and emotions toward them. To understand the impact of gender on religious stereotypes and emotions, across two studies, we analyzed stereotypes and emotions towards the men and women of three religious groups: Christians, Jews, and Muslims, to determine the presence of prototypicality biases using intersectional invisibility as the guiding framework. Methods: In Study 1 (pre-registered, n = 893), participants rated religious groups on four stereotype dimensions of Competence, Warmth, Beliefs, and Americanness, with religion as a within-subject variable and gender as a between-subject variable. In Study 2 (pre-registered, n = 915), participants rated religious groups on six emotional dimensions. Results: There was evidence of androcentric biases, as (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) men were perceived as more similar to their respective broader religious groups than (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) women. Additionally, Muslim women, in particular, experienced a double distancing from their identities: they were strongly differentiated from their broader religious category, i.e., Muslim, and from their broader gender category, i.e., women. Discussion: While much is known regarding religious groups as a whole, there is relatively little work disaggregating religious groups by gender. This paper highlights the importance of intersectionality and incorporating gender when assessing stereotypes and emotions towards religious groups, thereby advancing our theoretical and practical understanding of intergroup conflict and designing interventions applicable to both men and women within religious groups.","PeriodicalId":47450,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Religion and Spirituality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Religion and Spirituality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000500","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Discrimination against members of non-majority religious groups is widespread, often due to negative stereotypes and emotions toward them. To understand the impact of gender on religious stereotypes and emotions, across two studies, we analyzed stereotypes and emotions towards the men and women of three religious groups: Christians, Jews, and Muslims, to determine the presence of prototypicality biases using intersectional invisibility as the guiding framework. Methods: In Study 1 (pre-registered, n = 893), participants rated religious groups on four stereotype dimensions of Competence, Warmth, Beliefs, and Americanness, with religion as a within-subject variable and gender as a between-subject variable. In Study 2 (pre-registered, n = 915), participants rated religious groups on six emotional dimensions. Results: There was evidence of androcentric biases, as (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) men were perceived as more similar to their respective broader religious groups than (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) women. Additionally, Muslim women, in particular, experienced a double distancing from their identities: they were strongly differentiated from their broader religious category, i.e., Muslim, and from their broader gender category, i.e., women. Discussion: While much is known regarding religious groups as a whole, there is relatively little work disaggregating religious groups by gender. This paper highlights the importance of intersectionality and incorporating gender when assessing stereotypes and emotions towards religious groups, thereby advancing our theoretical and practical understanding of intergroup conflict and designing interventions applicable to both men and women within religious groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基督徒、犹太人和穆斯林:当性别未指定时,默认为男性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Psychology of Religion and Spirituality ® publishes peer-reviewed, original articles related to the psychological aspects of religion and spirituality. The journal publishes articles employing experimental and correlational methods, qualitative analyses, and critical reviews of the literature. Papers evaluating clinically relevant issues surrounding training, professional development, and practice are also considered. Full length research reports, literature reviews, and brief reports are all published.
期刊最新文献
The factor structure of the Duke University Religion Index: Continuing the conversation. Perceptions of psychedelic use by adults in the United States: Perceived psychospiritual benefits and risks, including spiritual struggles. Effects of prayer frequency and orientations on distress and well-being: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from Indonesian adults. Supplemental Material for Effects of Prayer Frequency and Orientations on Distress and Well-Being: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Evidence From Indonesian Adults Looks like it is not causal: Effects of activation of religiosity and spirituality on the contaminated mindware.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1