Roles of fundamentalism and authoritarianism in relations between religiosity and civil liberties among Muslims

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Asian Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2022-09-30 DOI:10.1111/ajsp.12553
Üzeyir Ok
{"title":"Roles of fundamentalism and authoritarianism in relations between religiosity and civil liberties among Muslims","authors":"Üzeyir Ok","doi":"10.1111/ajsp.12553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Two cross-sectional studies were conducted with undergraduate and graduate students (mean age = 22 years) in two university campuses in different regions of Turkey to investigate confrontations between conservative religious people and secular-liberal people and the roles of fundamentalism and authoritarianism for these groups. Study 1 investigated the connections between traditional religiosity and liberties and the impact of religious fundamentalism with a sample of 482 participants. Using hierarchical multiple linear regression and bootstrapping analysis, religiosity was seen as negatively connected to three components of liberties. It was shown that religious fundamentalism had an indirect effect on this connection. In Study 2, with a sample of 260 participants, the negative connection between traditional religiosity with liberties was confirmed. Further, it was found that particularly the conservatism dimension of right-wing authoritarianism played an explanatory role in this connection. In addition, as an extension of the two studies, it was observed that secular-liberal participants supported civil liberties in general, but they expressed opposition to freedom of religion in particular, indicating that the antagonism between religious and secular people may also stem from secular-liberal people. It was found that dimension of aggression of left-wing authoritarianism played an explanatory role in connection to this aspect.</p>","PeriodicalId":47394,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12553","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two cross-sectional studies were conducted with undergraduate and graduate students (mean age = 22 years) in two university campuses in different regions of Turkey to investigate confrontations between conservative religious people and secular-liberal people and the roles of fundamentalism and authoritarianism for these groups. Study 1 investigated the connections between traditional religiosity and liberties and the impact of religious fundamentalism with a sample of 482 participants. Using hierarchical multiple linear regression and bootstrapping analysis, religiosity was seen as negatively connected to three components of liberties. It was shown that religious fundamentalism had an indirect effect on this connection. In Study 2, with a sample of 260 participants, the negative connection between traditional religiosity with liberties was confirmed. Further, it was found that particularly the conservatism dimension of right-wing authoritarianism played an explanatory role in this connection. In addition, as an extension of the two studies, it was observed that secular-liberal participants supported civil liberties in general, but they expressed opposition to freedom of religion in particular, indicating that the antagonism between religious and secular people may also stem from secular-liberal people. It was found that dimension of aggression of left-wing authoritarianism played an explanatory role in connection to this aspect.

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
原教旨主义和威权主义在穆斯林宗教信仰和公民自由关系中的作用
在土耳其不同地区的两所大学校园中,对本科生和研究生(平均年龄为22岁)进行了两项横断面研究,以调查保守宗教人士与世俗自由人士之间的对抗,以及原教旨主义和威权主义在这些群体中的作用。研究1以482名参与者为样本,调查了传统宗教信仰与自由之间的联系以及宗教原教旨主义的影响。使用层次多元线性回归和自举分析,宗教信仰被视为与自由的三个组成部分负相关。研究表明,宗教原教旨主义对这种联系有间接影响。在研究2中,有260名参与者的样本,传统宗教信仰与自由之间的负相关被证实。进一步,我们发现,特别是右翼威权主义的保守主义维度在这一联系中发挥了解释作用。此外,作为这两项研究的延伸,我们观察到世俗自由主义参与者普遍支持公民自由,但他们特别反对宗教自由,这表明宗教与世俗之间的对立也可能源于世俗自由主义人士。研究发现,左翼威权主义侵略维度在这方面起着解释作用。
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
4.60
自引率
4.20%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Social Psychology publishes empirical papers and major reviews on any topic in social psychology and personality, and on topics in other areas of basic and applied psychology that highlight the role of social psychological concepts and theories. The journal coverage also includes all aspects of social processes such as development, cognition, emotions, personality, health and well-being, in the sociocultural context of organisations, schools, communities, social networks, and virtual groups. The journal encourages interdisciplinary integration with social sciences, life sciences, engineering sciences, and the humanities. The journal positively encourages submissions with Asian content and/or Asian authors but welcomes high-quality submissions from any part of the world.
期刊最新文献
Internationalising imperatives and decolonising aspirations: Navigating social psychology teaching in Asia Past, present and future: Colonial comparative victimhood hinders reconciliation with Chinese Indonesians through prejudice among natives Embodied spatial metaphor of cultural concept from the perspective of cultural tightness–looseness: Cultural compatibility concept is closer to the body From marital conflict to life satisfaction: How basic psychological need satisfaction operates—A dyadic analysis study Hierarchical drift‐diffusion modelling uncovers differences of valenced self‐evaluation
×
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