If You Don’t Believe in God, Do You at Least Believe in Aristotle? Evaluations of Religious Outgroup Members Hinge upon Moral Perceptions

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY International Journal for the Psychology of Religion Pub Date : 2021-05-17 DOI:10.1080/10508619.2021.1916240
Stephanie R. Mallinas, Paul Conway
{"title":"If You Don’t Believe in God, Do You at Least Believe in Aristotle? Evaluations of Religious Outgroup Members Hinge upon Moral Perceptions","authors":"Stephanie R. Mallinas, Paul Conway","doi":"10.1080/10508619.2021.1916240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Religious people tend to believe atheists are immoral. Although some work suggests that atheists themselves agree, such findings could also reflect symmetric ingroup bias in the moral domain, where atheists likewise view religious targets as untrustworthy and immoral. We examined how American religious and atheist participants rated the morality of atheist and religious targets and assessed a potential intervention: learning that targets adhere to a moral code. Across three studies, both religious and nonreligious participants demonstrated clear ingroup favoritism, rating ingroup targets more moral than outgroup targets. However, this ingroup bias was reduced when participants learned the target adheres to a warm and coherent moral system rooted in philosophy and concern for others. These findings extended beyond evaluations to downstream social consequences such as distancing. Such findings challenge arguments that atheists view themselves as immoral and point the way forward toward reducing religious ingroup bias.","PeriodicalId":47234,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","volume":"32 1","pages":"127 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508619.2021.1916240","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for the Psychology of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2021.1916240","RegionNum":2,"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: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Religious people tend to believe atheists are immoral. Although some work suggests that atheists themselves agree, such findings could also reflect symmetric ingroup bias in the moral domain, where atheists likewise view religious targets as untrustworthy and immoral. We examined how American religious and atheist participants rated the morality of atheist and religious targets and assessed a potential intervention: learning that targets adhere to a moral code. Across three studies, both religious and nonreligious participants demonstrated clear ingroup favoritism, rating ingroup targets more moral than outgroup targets. However, this ingroup bias was reduced when participants learned the target adheres to a warm and coherent moral system rooted in philosophy and concern for others. These findings extended beyond evaluations to downstream social consequences such as distancing. Such findings challenge arguments that atheists view themselves as immoral and point the way forward toward reducing religious ingroup bias.
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
如果你不相信上帝,你至少相信亚里士多德吗?基于道德观念的宗教外部成员评价
宗教人士倾向于认为无神论者是不道德的。尽管一些研究表明无神论者自己也同意这一点,但这些发现也可能反映了道德领域的对称内团体偏见,无神论者同样认为宗教目标是不值得信赖和不道德的。我们研究了美国的宗教和无神论者参与者如何评价无神论者和宗教目标的道德,并评估了一种潜在的干预措施:了解目标遵守道德准则。在三项研究中,宗教和非宗教的参与者都表现出明显的内群体偏好,认为内群体目标比外群体目标更道德。然而,当参与者了解到目标坚持一个植根于哲学和关心他人的温暖而连贯的道德体系时,这种内团体偏见就减少了。这些发现超出了对下游社会后果的评估,如保持距离。这些发现挑战了无神论者认为自己不道德的观点,并指出了减少宗教内团体偏见的前进方向。
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
4.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (IJPR) is devoted to psychological studies of religious processes and phenomena in all religious traditions. This journal provides a means for sustained discussion of psychologically relevant issues that can be examined empirically and concern religion in the most general sense. It presents articles covering a variety of important topics, such as the social psychology of religion, religious development, conversion, religious experience, religion and social attitudes and behavior, religion and mental health, and psychoanalytic and other theoretical interpretations of religion. The journal publishes research reports, brief research reports, commentaries on relevant topical issues, book reviews, and statements addressing articles published in previous issues. The journal may also include a major essay and commentaries, perspective papers of the theory, and articles on the psychology of religion in a specific country.
期刊最新文献
God, Can I Give Up?: The Diverging Effects of God-Related Thoughts on Task Persistence in Chinese Buddhists and Taoists The Role of Religion in the Mental Health of Single Adults: A Mixed-Method Investigation Effects of Participating in Religious Groups on Mental Health Issues: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study Enriching the Common Core of Mystical Experience: A Qualitative Analysis of Interviews with Daoist Monks and Nuns The Existential Challenge of Religious Pluralism: Religion, Politics, and Meaning in Life
×
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