The Limits of Antiatheist Prejudice

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1027/1864-9335/a000516
Aleksandra Rabinovitch, K. Cantarero, K. Szocik
{"title":"The Limits of Antiatheist Prejudice","authors":"Aleksandra Rabinovitch, K. Cantarero, K. Szocik","doi":"10.1027/1864-9335/a000516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: People tend to perceive atheists as being immoral. We tested whether this perception also applies to moral transgressions against animals. Study 1 ( N = 288) and Study 2 ( N = 306, pre-registered) utilized a conjunction fallacy paradigm to show that people attributed harming animals most frequently to criminals, then to God-believers, and least often to nonbelievers. Study 3 ( N = 248, pre-registered) used a job-choice paradigm and found that people choose a God-believer over an atheist for a job involving animal harm because the God-believer was supposed to hold a more hierarchical view of the relationship between humans and animals than the atheist. Consequently, we discuss the limits of antiatheist prejudice in the domain of human–animal interactions.","PeriodicalId":47278,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000516","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: People tend to perceive atheists as being immoral. We tested whether this perception also applies to moral transgressions against animals. Study 1 ( N = 288) and Study 2 ( N = 306, pre-registered) utilized a conjunction fallacy paradigm to show that people attributed harming animals most frequently to criminals, then to God-believers, and least often to nonbelievers. Study 3 ( N = 248, pre-registered) used a job-choice paradigm and found that people choose a God-believer over an atheist for a job involving animal harm because the God-believer was supposed to hold a more hierarchical view of the relationship between humans and animals than the atheist. Consequently, we discuss the limits of antiatheist prejudice in the domain of human–animal interactions.
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
反无神论偏见的极限
摘要:人们往往认为无神论者不道德。我们测试了这种看法是否也适用于对动物的道德违背。研究1 (N = 288)和研究2 (N = 306,预登记)使用了一个连接谬误范式,表明人们最常将伤害动物归咎于罪犯,其次是上帝信徒,而不常归咎于非信徒。研究3 (N = 248,预先登记)使用了一个工作选择范例,发现人们在涉及动物伤害的工作中选择信神的人而不是无神论者,因为信神的人比无神论者对人与动物之间的关系持有更分层的观点。因此,我们讨论了反无神论偏见在人与动物相互作用领域的局限性。
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
Social Psychology
Social Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Mere Ownership and Endowment Effects How Emotions Induce Charitable Giving Refusing to Pay Taxes Verbs Are Associated With Agency Cynical, But Useful?
×
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