GPI0010.1177/1368430216629566Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsBurch-Brown and Baker 629566research-article2016

G Group Processes & P Intergroup Relations I Article R

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 24–­1 Religion and reducing prejudice © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1368430216629566 gpir.sagepub.com Joanna Burch-Brown1 and William Baker2

Abstract Drawing on findings from the study of prejudice and prejudice reduction, we identify a number of mechanisms through which religious communities may influence the intergroup attitudes of their members. We hypothesize that religious participation could in principle either reduce or promote prejudice with respect to any given target group. A religious community’s influence on intergroup attitudes will depend upon the specific beliefs, attitudes, and practices found within the community, as well as on interactions between the religious community and the larger social environment in which it is embedded. Basing our proposals on findings from the literature on prejudice formation and prejudice reduction allows us to outline useful directions for future studies of religion and prejudice.

Keywords contact hypothesis, group processes, prejudice, prejudice reduction, religion, religiosity, social identity theory

Paper received 4 April 2014; revised version accepted 23 November 2015.

In this paper, we propose a set of simple hypoth- under certain facilitating conditions (e.g., equality eses about ways in which religions might tend to of status between the groups, successful coopera- promote or reduce prejudice. Our method is to tion, affirmation of positive distinct identities, build on established findings from the study of etc.). Conversely, we predict that religious com- prejudice reduction generally, and apply these munities will tend to increase prejudice to the findings to the study of religion and prejudice. extent that they discourage contact between social Drawing on the general study of prejudice reduc- groups, or encourage contact under problematic tion allows us to offer a number of well-sup- conditions (e.g., inequality of status between ported hypotheses about the diverse roles that groups, unsuccessful cooperation, failure to affirm religious communities may play in shaping inter- positive and unique subgroup identities, etc.). In group attitudes. To take one example, an important finding 1University of Bristol, UK from prejudice research is that intergroup contact 2Cardiff University, UK tends to reduce prejudice. In light of this finding, Corresponding author: we predict that religious communities will tend to Joanna Burch-Brown, University of Bristol, Cotham House, reduce prejudice between groups if they encour- Cotham Hill, Bristol, BS6 6JL, UK. age social contact between them, particularly Email:[email protected]

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2 practice, religious communities vary widely in range of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours found their messages regarding intergroup contact. across religious communities is profoundly varied Religious communities may discourage contact (Esposito, Fasching, & Lewis, 2014; Juergensmeyer, between some social groups, while facilitating and 2006; McKim, 2012, pp. 5–7; Meister, 2010; see encouraging contact between other social groups. also Burch Brown, 2013), and it is reasonable to The contact hypothesis may therefore help to par- expect this inter- and intrareligious diversity to tially explain variation in religious influences on result in significant variation in intergroup atti- intergroup attitudes. tudes. Our approach provides a more fine-grained In this paper we identify several such hypoth- route into exploring the diversity of influences eses, drawing on findings from the study of prej- likely to result from the practices of different udice reduction. Specifically, we predict that groups. religious communities will tend to reduce preju- This paper necessarily works within some dice to the extent that they do the following: (a) chosen limits. First, because the literature on Explain important differences in the social world prejudice is so rich and well developed, the pos- by pointing to differences in circumstances, sible directions for this project are many. In the instead of by reference to innate or essential space available, we discuss several important group characteristics; (b) Promote inclusive and hypotheses, but many others could have been pluralistic theologies; (c) Oppose prejudice- explored instead. We hope that readers will not supporting ideologies; (d) Model ways of catego- be limited by our omissions, and will find fur- rizing the social world which have been shown to ther hypotheses based on their own expertise. reduce prejudice, such as emphasizing positive Second, the paper adopts a theoretical focus common ingroup identities, while also affirming rather than an empirical one. We do not attempt distinct subgroup identities; (e) Encourage inter- to apply the hypotheses to practical cases. For group contact, cooperation, and friendship. researchers interested in operationalizing these These are just a few of the many possible hypoth- hypotheses in religious contexts, a useful eses that might be identified by drawing on preju- resource may be Stausberg and Engler (2013). dice-reduction research. We hope that these and Moreover, this paper does not attempt to review related hypotheses will be taken up by future the contemporary literature on religion and prej- researchers, and will be used to develop valuable udice, which would be a substantial undertaking insights into the diverse ways in which religious on its own. (A recent overview can be found in communities can shape intergroup attitudes. Rowatt, Carpenter, & Haggard, 2013.) Instead, The impact of religion on prejudice has been a in the space available, we have focused on devel- topic of interest within social psychology for oping our positive proposal. Finally, it is worth many decades. So far, however, research in this noting in advance that although our ultimate aim field has not made full use of resources from the in this paper is to identify ways in which reli- study of prejudice formation and reduction. gious communities might reduce prejudice, we Linking these bodies of research more systemati- also give considerable attention to ways in which cally could lead to significant advances in under- religions might contribute to prejudice formation. standing. One advantage of the approach we One reason for this is that findings to date have propose is that it supports a fine-grained study of tended to show a positive association between the possible relationships between religion and religious participation and prejudice against cer- prejudice. Historically, social psychological tain groups (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, research in this area has tended to treat religions 1993; Hall, Matz, & Wood, 2010; Johnson, generically (for instance with respondents being Rowatt, & LaBouff, 2012; Whitley, 2009). identified as “Christian” or “Jewish”), with broad Moreover, one way for religious communities to conclusions being drawn about the influence of reduce prejudice is by challenging those social religiosity on intergroup attitudes. However, the practices that tend to cause it, including their

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 3 own. Thus we have given some extended atten- We begin with a brief overview of past evi- tion to the topic of prejudice formation, dence concerning relationships between religion although the overall aim of the paper is to iden- and prejudice. We then draw on Social Identity tify avenues towards prejudice reduction. Theory to help explain why religion could some- Our hope is that the relatively straightforward times lead to the formation of prejudice. Finally, model offered here will attract the attention of we consider five ways in which religious commu- fellow researchers and will stimulate new direc- nities might reduce prejudice. Our hope is that tions for the field. There are at least three reasons these hypotheses can be used to identify fruitful to think that researchers interested in prejudice directions for future research. may benefit from exploring the influences of reli- gion. The first reason is that religion may some- Evidence of Relationships times play an important role in establishing social hierarchies and social divisions (Fredrickson, Between Religion and Prejudice 2009; Harvey, 2011). This makes religion a poten- Research into relationships between religion and tially important factor for understanding preju- prejudice began with the study of race relations dice and prejudice reduction. The second reason in America. Over a number of decades, this is the converse of the first. It is that religion may research has shown that religious identification sometimes play an important role in challenging and participation can at least sometimes be asso- social hierarchies and social divisions (Harris, ciated with increased prejudice towards a range 1999; Harvey, 2011; Morris, 1984). Both of these of outgroups (Altemeyer, 2009; Batson et al., ideas are discussed in some depth in the section 1993; Hall et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2012; entitled “Reducing Prejudice”. Rowatt, LaBouff, Johnson, Froese, & Tsang, A third reason has to do with the contempo- 2009; Whitley, 2009). For instance, a recent meta- rary global context. Nearly a third of the world’s analysis examined the results of 55 studies car- population (2.18 billion people) self-identify as ried out in the US since the Civil Rights Act of Christian, and a quarter (1.57 billion people) as 1964 and found significant—though declining— Muslim, with estimates suggesting that the correlations between levels of religious participa- world’s Muslim population will rise rapidly to tion and identification, and levels of overt and 30% by 2050 (Pew Research Center, 2015a). covert racial prejudice (Hall et al., 2010). Religious Many other people identify as Hindu (15%), identification in the US during this period has Buddhist (7.1%), adherents of folk religions also been positively correlated with prejudice (5.9%), and Jewish (0.2%). Only 16% of people against a range of other minority target groups, are religiously unaffiliated (including atheists and such as gay and nonreligious people (Hood, Hill, agnostics), the majority of whom live in China & Spilka, 2009; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005; (Pew Research Center, 2015a). Thus religion Jackson & Hunsberger, 1999; Whitley, 2009). plays an important role in the lives of communi- During the same period, by contrast, atheism and ties across the world, and many intergroup con- low levels of self-reported religiosity have been flicts involve religious identities in some way associated with lower levels of racism and preju- (Appleby, 2000; Pew Research Centre, 2015b). dice towards the same target groups in the US Researchers who wish to make a contribution to (Hall et al., 2010). understanding these conflicts cannot afford to Recent research has also found that activating ignore religion. Having a sophisticated under- religious concepts can increase prejudicial attitudes. standing of diverse religious influences may be For instance, subliminally priming U.S. undergradu- crucial for finding paths towards reducing con- ates with Christian words increased covert racial flict and promoting better intergroup relations in prejudice and negative affect towards African many communities across the world (Appleby, Americans (Johnson, Rowatt, & LaBouff, 2010). 2000; Johnston & Sampson, 1995; Smock, 2006). Religious priming amongst U.S. undergraduates can

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4 also lead to increased derogation towards value- personality variables (e.g., Altemeyer & violating outgroups, and increased in-group favour- Hunsberger, 1992), rather than mapping variation itism (Johnson et al., 2012). Outcomes may be between religious communities. As more recent sensitive to specific primes used. Preston, Ritter, research suggests (e.g., Saroglou & Cohen, 2011; and Hernandez (2010) found that priming for Tsang & McCullough, 2003) this traditional “Christianity” increased helping behaviours approach is not designed to reflect the variability towards ingroup but not outgroup members, of religious communities, and may lead research- whereas priming for “God” was associated with ers to overgeneralize on the basis of distinctive universal helping behaviour. Priming (either sub- religious and cultural contexts. liminally with religious terms, or supraliminally with The few studies focusing on East Asian reli- images and contextual cues) activates neural net- gions and prejudice suggest a different pattern of works, which in turn influence cognitive and affec- intergroup attitudes, with religiosity at least some- tive processing; thus priming can reveal on-line times being associated with greater intergroup tol- causal influence of religious concepts. These stud- erance (Clobert, Saroglou, Hwang, & Soong, ies show that activating religious concepts can in 2014). East Asian religiosity amongst individuals some cases increase prejudice. in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan has been Researchers have sometimes used such find- found to predict reduced levels of prejudice ings to draw broad conclusions about associa- towards numerous target groups, compared with tions between religiosity and prejudice. For nonreligious individuals, including reduced ethnic instance, on the question of whether religious prejudice (e.g., against Africans), reduced antigay persons are less tolerant than nonreligious per- and antiatheist prejudice, and reduced prejudice sons, Batson writes “Based on existing research, towards members of other religions (e.g., inter- the answer is very clear: in spite of what religions religious prejudice against Muslims; Clobert et al., preach about universal brotherhood, the more 2014). Relatedly, supraliminally priming Christians religious an individual is, the more intolerant he in Belgium with images of Buddhist monks in or she is likely to be” (Batson, 2013, p. 89). meditation was found to decrease implicit prejudice Similarly, Altemeyer writes that “The more one towards ethnic outgroups, suggesting both that goes to church, the more likely one will be preju- interreligious priming can influence intergroup diced against a variety of others” (Altemeyer, attitudes, and that subjects associated Buddhism 2009, p. 18). with values of openness and tolerance (Clobert & There are reasons to be cautious, however, in Saroglou, 2013). Preliminary as these findings drawing general conclusions from this research may be, they suggest that research thus far may (Gries, Su, & Schak, 2012; Olson, 2014). For one not be representative of the range of possible thing, most social psychological studies of reli- influences of religion, and they support the view gion and prejudice have focused on Christians in that some forms of religious belief and practice North America and Europe since the 1960s; and may reduce intergroup bias. most have examined either racism from Whites Relatedly, when dimensions such as right-wing towards Blacks (for review see Hall et al., 2010), authoritarianism (RWA), fundamentalism, and or attitudes towards groups perceived as chal- conservative ideologies are controlled for, reli- lenging traditional Christian values, such as gays gion ceases to be predictive of racial prejudice and lesbians, feminists, and atheists; or members (e.g., Newheiser et al., 2013; Rowatt, LaBouff, of non-Christian religions such as Judaism or Johnson, Froese, & Tsang, 2009). A representa- Islam (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Hunsberger & tive random survey by Rowatt et al. (2009) found Jackson, 2005; Jackson & Hunsberger, 1999; that “general religiosity” was only negligibly asso- Whitley, 2009). Traditional approaches have ciated with racial prejudice, although it was posi- treated religiosity as a unitary construct, and tively correlated with prejudice towards gays and explained variation by reference to individual lesbians. Rowatt et al. (2009) propose that these

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 5 findings offer support for the selective intolerance evidence shows that these associations can shift. hypothesis, according to which religion is associ- For instance, the correlation between racism and ated with prejudice towards groups perceived as extrinsic religiosity declined from the 1960s to behaving inconsistently with religious values. On 2008 (Hall et al., 2010). In a society where racism this hypothesis, we should expect for prejudicial has become unacceptable while religion remains attitudes to reflect the specific value and belief popular, motivations for social acceptance may systems of a religious community, and also to lead people to become both religious and overtly change over time as a reflection of changes in racially tolerant. This finding demonstrates that values and perceptions of outgroups. The selec- relationships between religion and prejudice may tive intolerance hypothesis is consonant with the change with social context (for detailed review of approach that we take in what follows, and sug- extrinsic, intrinsic and “quest” dimensions of gests that intergroup attitudes are likely to vary religiosity, see Batson, 2013). across religious communities and over time, fol- For similar reasons, caution should be exer- lowing changes in perceived value-consistency of cised in generalizing from priming experiments. outgroups. An advantage of priming studies is that they Evidence also suggests that associations may reveal on-line influences of religious con- between religion and prejudice in the US may be cepts on group attitudes. Nevertheless, the changing, alongside changes in broader social inferences they warrant are limited, because norms. For example, associations between “extrin- results inevitably reflect social and cultural expe- sic religiosity” and racial prejudice appear to be riences of subjects. For instance, words like declining (Hall et al., 2010). Whereas “intrinsic “Bible,” “Jesus,” and “prayer” are conceptually religiosity” involves valuing one’s religious faith associated with conservative social values for for its own sake, “extrinsic religiosity” involves many people in the US, reflecting current cul- valuing religion for benefits that are not strictly tural patterns. If a correlation exists between spiritual, such as comfort and security in times of religion and prejudice in a given cultural context, difficulty, and a respected place in a social com- then regardless of the underlying causes, famili- munity (Allport, 1950, 1954, 1966; Batson, 2013; arity with these social patterns is likely to be Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990). Extrinsic religiosity reflected in the semantic networks that are acti- has historically been associated with higher levels vated. In other words, results will reflect cultural of both overt and covert prejudice (Batson, 2013). and social learning, and not simply a general This association appears to be mediated by social- effect of “religiosity.” Even if there is a general cognitive motivations for social acceptance and effect of religiosity, it is not clear that these conformity (Hall et al., 2010). Motivations for methods can isolate it or rule out alternative, social acceptance may lead individuals to agree culture- and socialization-based hypotheses. with prevalent social attitudes (such as racial atti- Priming experiments may reveal religion’s causal tudes), and also to accept received religious prac- influences in particular cultural contexts. tices and beliefs. Intrinsic religiosity, on the other However, without extensive cross-cultural com- hand, has been negatively associated with overt parisons, they cannot warrant general conclu- prejudice, but neutral with respect to covert preju- sions about the effects of religiosity as such. dice. This effect is commonly said to be mediated Finally, one of the strongest reasons for taking by social desirability (Batson, Naifeh, & Pate, a broader view has to do with the importance of 1978; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990; Sedikides & interpreting immediate group attitudes within the Gebauer, 2010). However, it could also reflect context of larger processes of social change variables not well-distinguished within the Social (Guimond, Sablonniére, & Nugier, 2014; Tajfel & Desirability Scale, such as an individual’s motiva- Turner, 1979; Wright, 2009). Historically, minority tion to meet moral standards they personally religious communities have played central roles in value. Whatever the underlying mechanisms, progressive social movements opposing racism,

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 6 segregation, and prejudice. In the U.S. Civil Rights Social Identity, Religion, and movement, religious leaders like Dr. Martin Luther Prejudice King, Jr. and church networks like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) played a In this section we draw on a social identity per- major part in mobilizing Black and White commu- spective and the concepts of realistic and sym- nities against racism (Dorrien, 2011; Harris, 1999; bolic threat to explain why religion might Harvey, 2005, 2011; Morris, 1984). Other exam- sometimes contribute to the formation of preju- ples include the role of the Quakers and religious dice. In the subsequent sections, we will turn leaders like John Woolman and William Wilberforce towards hypotheses concerning possible ways in the opposition to slavery (Dorrien, 2011); the that religions may reduce prejudice. Gandhian movements in South Asia, which drew Religious communities often profoundly ecumenically on Hinduism, Buddhism, and shape the ways in which their members concep- Christianity in constructing practical philosophies tualize the social world (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, of nonviolent resistance to social oppression 2009; Paloutzian & Park, 2013; Saroglou, 2013; (Atack, 2012); the egalitarian Islamic pacifist move- Ysseldyk, Matheson, & Anisman, 2010) and reli- ment of Pakistani leader Abdul Ghaffar Khan gion can play an important role in shaping the (Appleby, 2000); the Catholic Workers movement formation of individuals’ social identities and South American liberation theology (Appleby, (Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007; Ysseldyk et al., 2010). 2000; Dorrien, 2011); and the cooperation between According to social identity theory, an individual’s progressive Black and White churches in resistance self-concept is shaped in part through subjective to South African apartheid (Appleby, 2000). Many identification with a range of social groups. Tajfel social movements directed towards overcoming defines a person’s social identity as his “knowl- group-based injustice and discrimination have edge that he belongs to certain social groups been organized through religious communities— together with some emotional and value signifi- often starting with the minority group’s own reli- cance to him of the group membership” (Tajfel, gious communities and leaders—and have drawn 1972, p. 292). This subjective identification is on religious ideas and values in making the case for supported by the individual’s self-categorization (J. C. resistance to social oppression (Dorrien, 2011; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Harris, 1999; Harvey, 2011; Morris, 1984). J. C. Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994), The fact that such communities have often through which she conceives of herself as been opposed by other religious groups advocat- belonging to various social groups (carpenter, ing social hierarchy and segregation underlines the Quaker, Christian, academic, family member, argument of this paper—that there is a high African American, and so on) and assigns some degree of internal variation within religious faiths emotional significance or meaning to these and between communities, and that the cumula- groups. Human beings have a need for positive tive social messages of different religious commu- group membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). nities will often lead to significantly different Strong and positive identification with social group attitudes. Strongly egalitarian theologies groups is associated with many psychological and religious practices may historically be the benefits, including improved coping, self-esteem, exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, these social support, and clinical outcomes such as pro- minority voices have sometimes had profound tection against depression (Haslam, Jetten, influences on the larger culture. Such considera- Postmes, & Haslam, 2009; Hughes, Kiecolt, tions give support to recent methodological shifts Keith, & Demo, 2015; Paloutzian & Park, 2013). towards treating religion as a multidimensional Religious identification may be experienced as construct (Atran & Norenzayan, 2004; Saroglou, a particularly valuable form of group member- 2011; Saroglou & Cohen, 2011; Tsang & ship, because of the meaningfulness of religious McCullough, 2003). experience, and the cognitive and emotional

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 7 rewards of participating in a community organ- as symbolically threatening if it is perceived as ized around important moral ideals and values altering or eroding the religion’s values, tradition, like love and commitment (Graham & Haidt, and culture, or weakening the religion’s unity 2010; Hood et al., 2009; Parmagent, 1997; (compare with national identity threat; Yogeeswaran Saroglou, 2011, 2013; Ysseldyk et al., 2010). For & Dasgupta, 2014). Some religious communities many people, religious identification provides place strong emphasis on the importance of right valued cognitive and affective benefits, such as a belief (orthodoxy). For members of these reli- sense of spiritual, moral, and social purpose; a gions, interaction with nonbelievers may be per- sense of meaning; feelings of connection and ceived as undesirable or threatening, for instance belonging; emotional bonding; and cognitively if it is thought that it might lead to weakening of and emotionally rewarding ways of understand- belief (and, in turn, of social and moral bonds; ing existence and one’s place within it (Graham & Hood, Hill, & Williamson, 2005). For reasons we Haidt, 2010; Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; explain in what follows, teachings that separate Parmagent, 1997; Saroglou, 2011). Religious par- and discourage contact between social groups are ticipation may provide particularly rewarding particularly likely to increase in-group favouritism social bonds, leading to feelings of social identifi- and out-group derogation. This suggests that a cation (Ysseldyk et al., 2010). From a sociofunc- strong emphasis on right belief, combined with an tional perspective, religion binds people together expectation that belief might be weakened by in moral communities (Graham & Haidt, 2010). exposure to different views, may make contact In some cases, rewarding social bonds and with religious outgroup members especially social identification might develop in ways that threatening. Diversity may also be threatening if support prejudice reduction. For instance, as subgroups feel that their distinct positive identities noted previously, religious communities played are being suppressed through pressure towards important roles in both the abolitionist and U.S. assimilation (Holoien & Shelton, 2012; Hornsey civil rights movements. Members of these reli- & Hogg, 2000; Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009) or gious communities often reported feelings of if there are anxieties about stigmatization (Hyers community pride, purpose, solidarity, interper- & Hyers, 2008). sonal bonds, and social identification associated Finally, from an integrated threat theory per- with their religious community’s role in these spective (Stephan & Renfro, 2002) prejudice may social movements (Harris, 1999; Harvey, 2005, arise if social groups organized through religion 2011). A person might form a strong social identi- compete for material goods of various kinds (such fication with a religious community on the as territorial control of sacred places); and sym- grounds that the community is committed to ide- bolic threat may arise towards religious group mem- als of egalitarianism, universal love, pluralism, bers if they are perceived as advocating worldviews, inclusivity, and so on. practices, and values that are in tension with those On the other hand, in part because of its of other members of society. It has also been sug- importance to social identity and to moral com- gested that interreligious prejudice may be driven munity, religious identification might also some- by perceived threats to freedom (Cottrell & times be related to outgroup prejudice, for Neuberg, 2005). Evidence suggests that perceived instance either through realistic or symbolic con- dogmatic language triggers aversive reactions, flict. In religious identity threat, perceived challenges including threat and state reactance, which is con- to a religion or religious community may be expe- ceptualized by Brehm (1966) as an aversive moti- rienced as threatening to an individual’s values, vational state involving resistance to perceived worldview, culture, family, moral community, and attempts at persuasion (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; social group (Ysseldyk et al., 2010; Ysseldyk, Quick & Stephenson, 2008). Contact with reli- Matheson, & Anisman, 2011). For instance, social gious outgroups may trigger state reactance, along and religious diversity may be experienced with associated aversive appraisals related to

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8 distrust and anger at perceived threat (Cottrell & empathy; and cognitive and affective factors Neuberg, 2005; Gervais, Shariff, & Norenzayan, together may influence subsequent behaviour. 2011). This initial discussion illustrates just a few For instance, they may influence willingness of the possible ways in which associations between to participate in intergroup contact and dia- religion and prejudice might develop. logue (Halperin & Bar-Tal, 2011; Halperin, Crisp, & Husnu, 2012; Smock, 2006); to create opportunities to listen to outgroup members Reducing Prejudice explain their experiences (Smock, 2006); to In the rest of this paper, we turn our attention to apologize for ingroup wrongdoing (Cehajic- prejudice reduction. We start from the simple Clancy, Effron, Halperin, Liberman, & Ross, thought that insofar as religious communities pro- 2011; Smock, 2006); or to challenge the mote the kinds of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours ingroup’s collective narrative (Bar-Tal, Sharvit, that the empirical literature has shown tend to be Halperin, & Zafran, 2012). This integrative associated with reduced prejudice, then participa- model offers a useful framework from which to tion in these communities will tend to be prejudice- conceptualize different aspects of a religion’s reducing. We then turn to the empirical literature to influence on intergroup attitudes. With this identify more specific hypotheses. This simple model in view, we now explore five broad approach is attractive because it should help hypotheses concerning the ways in which reli- researchers to develop well-theorized, empirically gious communities may reduce prejudice supported, and fine-grained accounts of the diverse amongst their members. influences of religion on intergroup attitudes. We have found it useful to structure our more Generalized Worldviews specific hypotheses by drawing on Bar-Tal and Halperin’s integrative model of barriers to peacemak- Modelling malleable instead of fixed styles of social ing (Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2011; Halperin & Bar-Tal, explanation. Our first hypothesis is that reli- 2011; see also Bar-Tal, 2013). On this model, factors gious communities will tend to reduce preju- through which religious communities can influence dice if they model styles of social explanation the intergroup attitudes of their members fall into a associated with greater openness and tolerance. number of mutually influencing categories: These include (a) promoting the belief that “all people can change”; and (b) teaching that •• Generalized worldviews. important differences between social groups •• Society-specific social beliefs, including ideo- are often due to circumstances, rather than logical social beliefs and circumstantial essential natures. beliefs particular to a given group “Natural kinds” social reasoning explains situation. group similarities by reference to a common inner •• Intergroup emotions, such as intergroup nature or essence of individuals involved (Brewer, bonding and feelings of affinity, or emo- Hong, & Li, 2013; Yzerbyt, Judd, & Corneille, tions like hate, disgust, and anxiety. 2004). Explaining social differences by reference •• Intergroup behaviour. to natural kind conceptions of race, gender, and other traits tends to reinforce existing social hier- These categories interact with each other archies, since observed characteristics are taken to over time to influence intergroup attitudes. For be fixed rather than a result of context. Evidence example, generalized worldviews, together with suggests that natural kinds approaches to social society-specific social beliefs, will shape atti- explanation tend to be associated with increased tudes towards outgroup members. These cog- levels of prejudice (Brewer et al., 2013; Chiu, nitive factors may in turn influence intergroup Hong, & Dweck, 1997; see also Andreychik & emotions, such as feelings of affinity and Gill, 2015; Paloutzian & Park, 2013).

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 9

Agency-based social explanation, by contrast, will tend to reduce prejudice if they develop tends to support a view of the members of a inclusive and pluralistic theologies. An impor- group as capable of change, and of the qualities of tant body of research into religion and preju- the group as malleable (Chiu et al., 1997). Group dice has focused on distinguishing between similarities are taken to reflect shared or common flexible (“open” or “questing”) and closed or circumstances, beliefs, values, and experiences. rigid styles of religiosity (Batson et al., 1993; Thus early Black activists in America often sought Batson & Stocks, 2005). Individuals with flexi- to demonstrate that the circumstances in which ble styles of religious faith report seeing their Blacks had lived were responsible for characteris- religion or spirituality as an ongoing explora- tics like illiteracy and lack of skills, which Whites at tion, rather than a set of fixed answers; are will- the time generally explained through appeal to ing to explore different religious viewpoints, fixed conceptions of racial characteristics (Dorrien, acknowledge doubts, and see their faith as an 2011). Black activists sought to gradually change evolving journey (Batson, 1976). Research has the views of Whites by showing that inequality in found that individuals who describe their faith attainment was the result of social circumstances as an ongoing exploration of open questions instead of fixed traits (Dorrien, 2011). tend to be more comfortable with ambiguity, Research shows that providing subjects with and also show lower levels of outgroup preju- evidence that “all people can change” and that dice. By contrast, individuals who think of their social realities reflect circumstances rather than religion as offering settled answers tend to be fixed traits, can significantly reduce prejudice less comfortable with ambiguity, and to have (Dweck, 2012; Halperin & Bar-Tal, 2011; higher levels of outgroup prejudice (Batson, Halperin, Russell, Trzesniewski, Gross, & 1976, 2013). The relationship between funda- Dweck, 2011). In a recent study conducted with mentalism and prejudice appears to be medi- three socially distinct and politically divided ated by a need for closure and by preferences groups of Palestinians and Israeli Jews, for for consistency (Brandt & Reyna, 2010, 2014; instance, Halperin et al. (2011) found that for all Hill, Cohen, Terrell, & Nagoshi, 2010; Shen, groups, having subjects read articles depicting Yelderman, Haggard, & Rowatt, 2013; see also social groups in general as malleable significantly Mavor, Louis, & Laythe, 2011). improved positive attitudes towards the political This suggests that religious communities will outgroup, increased willingness to engage in tend to reduce prejudice if they guide members intergroup contact, and increased willingness to to develop flexible styles of religious faith (Brandt problem-solve and consider compromise. One & Reyna, 2010). For instance, Williams (2013) explanation for this effect is that if conflict-sup- hypothesizes that religious communities can sup- porting behaviour is conceived as arising from port young people (in the case of his study, fixed traits, then the perceived possibility of pos- British Muslims) in developing integratively com- itive change (and therefore the anticipated value plex ways of thinking about social identitities. Of of intergroup contact and communication) may particular significance for religious communities, be significantly reduced (Halperin & Bar-Tal, he suggests, is evidence showing that interpersonal 2011; Halperin et al., 2011). We hypothesize that environments play a substantial role in shaping cog- religious communities may reduce prejudice by nitive styles (Suedfeld, Leighton, & Conway, teaching that social, psychological, and behav- 2006; Tetlock, 1986). Building on Tetlock’s (1986) ioural differences are often the result of differ- hypothesis that people will think in integratively ences in circumstances, and reflect malleable complex ways when faced with values which they characteristics rather than fixed inner nature. perceive as similarly important and conflicting, Williams hypothesizes that a community may be Promoting inclusive and pluralistic theologies. Our able to encourage complex thinking amongst second hypothesis is that religious communities members by providing social opportunities which

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10 encourage young people to practice thinking flex- advocated as central parts of spiritual develop- ibly and exploring multiple perspectives. ment and exploration (Knitter, 2003). (In our Comfort with accepting multiple perspectives view, these considerations support treating may help to explain why forms of East Asian “questing” or open styles of faith as genuine reli- religiosity are associated with reduced prejudice gious orientations rather than an expression of (Clobert et al., 2014). It is common in Buddhism agnosticism; cf. Hall et al. [2010].) We hypothe- and Hinduism, for instance, to teach that all size that reduced prejudice will be associated with truths are partial, that all human experience of these more pluralistic and inclusive religious the world is illusory, that the truth cannot be fully orientations. known, that right teachings may be relative to times and places, and that many different and Society-Specific Social Beliefs apparently inconsistent realities and perspectives on the world may simultaneously be true (Atack, Opposing prejudice-supporting ideologies. Our next 2012; Clobert et al., 2014; Gries et al., 2012; hypothesis focuses on prejudice-supporting ide- Holmes, 2014). Many Asian religions place less ologies. We hypothesize that religious communi- emphasis, if any, on the importance of “right ties will tend to reduce prejudice if they challenge belief ” (orthodoxy), while placing greater empha- ideologies that justify strong social hierarchies sis on the importance of forms of “right prac- and divisions between social groups. Prejudice- tice” (orthopraxy) associated with spiritual supporting ideologies can be usefully understood enhancement (Heim, 1995; Knitter, 2003). In with reference to social dominance theory (Sida- many Asian contexts it is also common for a sin- nius & Pratto, 1999). According to social domi- gle individual to participate in multiple religions nance theory, human beings have evolved in (multiple religious participation) and to self-iden- communities characterized by group-based social tify as belonging to multiple religions (multiple hierarchies. Within these hierarchies, dominant religious identification; Gries et al., 2012; Holmes, groups tend to benefit from disproportionate 2014). Clobert et al. (2014) hypothesize that access to both symbolic and material positive Eastern religiosity’s association with lower levels social value (e.g., status, good education, jobs, of prejudice might have to do with greater com- healthy environments) while subordinate groups fort in exploring multiple perspectives, and suffer from a disproportionate share of negative reduced need for closure and consistency. social value (such as lower status, lower quality Openness to diverse perspectives and reduced education and jobs, and less healthy environ- emphasis on closure is also associated with vari- ments). Sidanius and Pratto (1999) propose that ous traditions within Christianity and Islam. This group-based social hierarchies generally develop perspective is expressed through branches of along age, gender, and “arbitrary-set” characteris- mysticism, Quaker faith and practice, and mystic tics, with arbitrary-set characteristics including traditions or apophatic theology, amongst others. traits like religion and race, and varying widely Mystic traditions characteristically conceive of depending on culture. The development of hier- the divine as beyond ordinary realms of percep- archies takes place in part through a combination tion. They encourage spiritual practices aimed at of direct teaching and indirect social learning increasing awareness of the limits of human per- (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social dominance the- ception and comprehension. Spiritual wisdom, ory posits that prejudice arises partly because of according to these traditions, involves apprecia- the importance of group affiliation in human tion of the divine as ineffable, or beyond finite societies for determining access to positive social human perception and knowledge. Ideals of value, and protecting against negative social open exploration (in Anselm’s phrase, of “faith value. Sidanius and Pratto propose that ideologi- seeking understanding”) are core values and ten- cal frameworks can either legitimize and ets in many religious traditions. They are often strengthen group-based social hierarchies, or they

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 11 can delegitimize and weaken these hierarchies. with social hierarchies, potentially leading to Thus we propose that a central way that religions increased prejudice. may shape intergroup attitudes is through either On the other hand, religion has also been used legitimizing or delegitimizing hierarchy-support- to challenge social hierarchies. For instance, Black ing ideologies. Christians in the American south identified egali- The importance of this hypothesis can be tarian messages within Christianity and used them powerfully illustrated through historical exam- in the public sphere to challenge racial inequality ples. In the American south prior to the Civil (Harris, 1999; Harvey, 2005, 2011; Morris, 1984). War, White churches widely promoted a theol- During the Civil Rights movement, religious com- ogy according to which racial hierarchies were munities such as the Southern Christian Leadership conceived as part of God’s social order Conference (SCLC), led by Reverend Martin (Fredrickson, 2009; Harvey, 2005; Irons, 2009). Luther King, Jr., played pivotal roles in mobilizing Hierarchical ideals were reflected in sermons, Black and White Americans to oppose racist hier- Sunday schools, and church organization. For archies in the south. King’s philosophy of nonvio- instance, in mixed congregations, Whites led ser- lent resistance drew on egalitarian interpretations vices and sat in the main areas of the church of Christian love, along with Gandhian examples, while Blacks were restricted to the balconies, which themselves reflected diverse religious tradi- with their worship overseen by Whites (Harvey, tions (Washington, 1986). In addition to an egali- 2011). Racist ideologies also played an important tarian commitment to universal love, abolitionists part in religious worship. For instance, a com- and civil rights leaders often employed biblical mon theme of sermons was that the relationship imagery and ideals to convey moral ideas, and to between the races should mirror the relationship convince Blacks and Whites of the possibility of between God and humankind; in the same way social transformation (Washington, 1986). that the church is the servant of God, and is Religious communal support and spirituality have guided and governed by him, men should guide been frequently cited by African Americans as and govern women, and Whites should guide sources of psychological resilience and positive and govern Blacks (Harvey, 2011; Irons, 2009). self-concept in the face of racial oppression In the antebellum south, many White evangeli- (Harris, 1999). Organizationally, churches have cals believed that teaching Christianity to Black been an avenue through which communities have slaves would help them to accept slavery, by rein- trained and developed leaders and mobilized for forcing ideals of social order (Fredrickson, 2009; collective action (Harris, 1999; Morris, 1984)—an Harvey, 2011). often key capacity in relation to larger social aims This example suggests that religion can some- of establishing equal relationships and reducing times serve as a vehicle for establishing social prejudice (Guimond et al., 2014; Tajfel & Turner, hierarchies, and these hierarchies may shape 1979; Wright, 2009). These examples illustrate social identities in important ways (Fredrickson, ways in which religion has been used within large 2009; Harvey, 2011; Irons, 2009). Groups may social movements to resist social hierarchies. They develop identities in which an important feature also highlight the potential importance of religion of their positive self-concept is their superiority for the study of prejudice more generally, since to other social groups (Fredrickson, 2009; Irons, religion has in some important cases served as a 2009). Dominant groups might be motivated to vehicle through which communities have opposed develop theologies that justify and make moral prejudice-supporting ideologies. sense of their ongoing advantage, for instance by Within the existing literature on religion and interpreting social hierarchies as part of the prejudice, the concept of prejudice-supporting divine order (Harvey, 2011). This illustrates some worldviews has most often been explored using of the complex ways in which religious identity, three constructs: social dominance orientation (SDO), practice, and theology may evolve in interaction right wing authoritarism (RWA), and fundamentalism

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 12

(F) or religious fundamentalism (RF; Altemeyer the most important question may not be whether & Hunsberger, 1992, 2004; see also, Johnson religion is associated with prejudice beyond that et al., 2011). In some of the literature, these con- predicted by these measures. Instead, the key structs are interpreted as personality variables, question may have to do with the role of religious but they may be thought of in a number of ways, communities in generating prejudice-supporting including as characterizations of prejudice-ori- worldviews, or in challenging them. It could be ented ideologies (see Guimond, Dambrun, misleading to say that these constructs moderate Michinov, & Duarte, 2003). SDO measures the or mediate the relationship between religion and strength of a subject’s desire to be deferred to by prejudice, if in fact the relationship is a very direct others, and the strength of their support for the one, with some religious communities actively view that some groups are superior and should be teaching the ideologies in question, and others higher in the social hierarchy (Sidanius & Pratto, actively opposing them. 1999). RWA measures the extent to which an Moreover, an important discussion is cur- individual is inclined to defer to expert authorities rently ongoing in the literature concerning prob- (authoritarian submissiveness) and to adhere to lems in the construct validity of RWA, and the established social norms (conventionalism; see relationship between RWA, fundamentalism, and Mavor, Louis, & Sibley, 2010). F measures the social dominance orientation (e.g., Mavor et al., extent to which an individual believes that her 2011). RWA is a composite construct, measuring organizing worldview is the only true path, and three attitudinal clusters (aggression, submission, the extent to which her sense of purpose and and conventionalism). In treating RWA as a uni- meaning is organized around this commitment. tary construct, the relationships between subcon- Researchers have found that individuals scoring structs are problematically obscured, resulting in highly on any of these three measures also tend unreliable results concerning the scale as a whole to score highly in measures of prejudice towards (Mavor et al., 2011). For instance, emphasizing outgroups (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). that most respondents fall towards the middle of Duckitt and Sibley find that RWA especially pre- the RWA scale, and that subjects may receive sim- dicts prejudice towards groups that are seen as ilar scores on RWA but differ widely in relative threatening or dangerous, while SDO especially scores for each contributing construct, Mavor predicts prejudice towards derogated groups, et al. (2011) reanalyse findings from Laythe, reflecting motivation for group dominance Finkel, Bringle, and Kirkpatrick (2002) in order to (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007, 2010). distinguish between roles of the three attitudinal Although SDO is not a religious variable, clusters of aggression, submission, and conven- research into religion and prejudice has often tionalism. They find that aggression and submis- used RWA, SDO, and F together to explain pat- sion correlate strongly with both antigay and terns of religion-related prejudice. For instance, racial prejudice while conventionalism correlates one method has been to measure the extent to strongly only with antigay prejudice. This sug- which these three constructs predict observed gests that relationships of interest may in some patterns of prejudice in a population, and then to cases be hidden within the scale, rather than being measure whether religious identity or affiliation revealed by it. predicts prejudice over and above that predicted by A related problem uncovered by Mavor et al. RWA, SDO, and F (e.g., Newheiser et al., 2013). (2011) concerns statistical artifacts resulting from However, a number of issues arise in relation suppression effects due to obscured relationships to this kind of study. One is that religious com- between subconstructs. Suppression effects in munities are likely to influence the development some cases undermine empirical findings. For of members’ worldviews. If religious communi- instance, evidence from Hall et al. (2010) sug- ties are sometimes responsible for promoting the gested that once authoritarianism is controlled for, attitudes measured by RWA, SDO, and F, then fundamentalism might be correlated with reduced

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 13 prejudice. However, this finding turns out to be a Such styles of religious social categorization are statistical artifact, which disappears once relation- likely to reduce prejudice. ships between subconstructs are accounted for. Conversely, we hypothesize that a community Finally, further validity problems arise in using will tend to increase prejudice if it draws sharp RWA together with F, because the scales share cer- and rigid social boundaries—for instance between tain items, and some items make direct reference those whom God favours and those whom God to certain prejudices (e.g., homophobia). This rejects—and if it discourages members from undermines the claim that they are predictive of thinking in terms of positive identities that they these prejudices. Indeed it might be generally share with members of the outgroup. Finally, we argued that RWA and SDO are useful for measuring hypothesize that a community will fail to decrease prevalence of distinct styles of prejudiced world- prejudice if it solely emphasizes common ingroup views, but are not suitably interpreted as explaining identities without positively affirming social these prejudices. Thus significant methodological groups’ distinct identities (Brewer, 1991; Holoien challenges need to be worked through in using & Shelton, 2012; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Plaut RWA, SDO, and F effectively in the study of reli- et al., 2009). gion and prejudice. Nevertheless, it seems clear The two approaches on which these hypothe- that one important way in which religion can influ- ses are based are the common ingroup identity ence prejudice is through promoting or opposing model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2014) and multiple prejudice-supporting ideologies. It would be valu- categorization models (Brewer, 2000; Crisp & able for future research to explore underlying factors Hewstone, 2007). The common ingroup identity (such as existing social status) that influence com- model posits that intergroup prejudice may be munities to develop egalitarian or inegalitarian the- reduced if individuals conceptualize ingroup and ologies and religious practices. outgroup members in terms of a positive, shared identity. However, focusing solely on a common Positive common ingroup identities, multiple categoriza- identity may induce identity threat by reducing tion. One of the most fundamental ways in which individuals’ sense of having a valuable, unique religious communities influence intergroup atti- identity (Brewer, 1991; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; tudes is by developing and communicating ideas see also debates on multiculturalism vs. differ- about social groups, including conceptions of the ence-blind/colour-blind approaches to diversity different groups that make up society, and causal in e.g., Holoien & Shelton, 2012; Plaut et al., explanations of the qualities and characteristics 2009; Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2014). According of these groups. Our next hypothesis is that reli- to the optimal distinctiveness model, the forma- gious communities will tend to reduce prejudice tion of an individual’s social identity is driven by if they model strategies of social categorization a desire for belonging and assimilation, on the which (a) include outgroup members and ingroup one hand, and a desire for positive distinctness members as equals within a positive common and differentiation on the other (Brewer, 1991). ingroup identity, while (b) keeping salient each For this reason, it is now thought that the most subgroup’s positive unique identity (Gaertner & promising recategorization strategies involve mul- Dovidio, 2014; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Plaut tiple categorization (or dual-representation) models, et al., 2009). For instance, a religious community in which distinct, positive ingroup identities are may teach that all people, both within the faith kept salient alongside positive social categories and outside of it, are fundamentally equal, share a that are shared with the outgroup (Brown & common humanity, and are united in one moral Hewstone, 2005). community through divine universal love, but A potential limitation is that if groups see that each community has something distinctive themselves as prototypical or as excelling with and valuable to offer (Atack, 2012; Dorrien, 2011; respect to the normative standards of a shared Hashmi, 2003; Smock, 2006; Washington, 1986). category, then making this category salient may

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 14 reinforce outgroup prejudice (Kunst, Thomsen, worldviews and society-specific social beliefs. & Sam, 2014; Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). Our final hypothesis focuses on behaviour. We Another important limitation is that communities hypothesize that religious communities will tend may not always be knowledgable enough to iden- to reduce prejudice if they encourage contact, tify positive shared group identities. For instance, friendship, and cooperation across social groups. many religious communities may be unsure of Conversely, we hypothesize that religious com- how to understand nonreligious ethics and moral munities will tend to increase prejudice if they identity. In the US, 53% of people agree that discourage contact, friendship, and cooperation belief in God is necessary for morality (Pew across social groups. Research Center, 2014). In most countries this Intergroup contact is one of the most widely figure is much higher, reaching over 90% of tested and strongly confirmed methods of preju- agreement in Ghana, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, dice reduction. We aim here only to give an over- the Philippines, Jordan, Egypt, and El Salvador view of key findings from this extensive literature. (Pew Research Center, 2014). Religious people Evidence robustly demonstrates that intergroup may doubt the reliability of nonreligious moral contact is associated with reduced prejudice. An systems that are based on motivations like princi- important meta-analysis reviewing studies from pled commitments to justice or compassion, 38 countries, and involving a quarter of a million rather than fear of God. This may mean that subjects, found strong correlations between inter- communication and mutual education is required group contact and reduced prejudice (Pettigrew between groups before shared positive identities & Tropp, 2006, 2011). Mere contact with out- are discovered and affirmed. However, both reli- group members was associated with reduced gious and nonreligious ethical systems often prejudice under a wide range of conditions (effect advocate similar ideals, such as values of inter- size r = −.20; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). However, group harmony and social justice, love, respect, intergroup contact most effectively reduces bias compassion, and broad messages of social inclu- if a number of facilitating conditions are met. sion. Affirming these and other core values For instance, evidence shows that contact is most (Schwartz & Huismans, 1995) may provide a effective if participants basis of shared moral community for religious and nonreligious individuals. For instance, theists •• have equal status; and nontheists might conceive of themselves as •• have approval from authority figures; united by shared commitments to social justice •• are cooperating towards shared goals; and universal love. •• are successful in achieving their goals; Hypotheses based on social categorization •• are not in competition with one another; theory are important for the study of religion and •• have equal but differentiated tasks; prejudice, because religious communities often •• are given positive affirmation of distinct devote substantial portions of their sacred texts, group identities; and sermons, and social discourses to explaining •• if members of the target group convey appropriate relationships between different social that they are typical of their social group, groups, or between the religious group and the rather than exceptional. broader society. How a religious community con- ceptualizes the social world will have a substantial Support for these conditions can be found in: effect on the intergroup attitudes of its members. Aronson and Patnoe (1997); Bettencourt, Brewer, Rogers-Croak, and Miller (1992); Bettencourt Behaviour et al. (1999); Brewer and Kramer (1985); Brewer and Miller (1984); Brown and Adams (1986); Contact, cooperation, and intergroup friendship. Our Cohen and Lotan (1995); Dovidio et al. (1997); previous hypotheses focused on generalized Gaertner and Dovidio (2014); Sherif (1966).

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 15

One form of contact strongly associated story about intergroup friendship increased posi- with reduced prejudice is cross-group friendship tive attitudes towards refugees amongst young (R. N. Turner, Hewstone, Voci, Paolini, & children in Rwanda (Cameron, Rutland, Brown, Christ, 2007). Effects are particularly moderated & Douch, 2006; see also Paluck, 2009). Prejudice- by the amount of time spent with outgroup reducing effects from imagination-based exer- friends, and self-disclosure to friends (Davies, cises are greatest when participants imagine Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011). Cross- interactions that are positive, relaxed, and com- group friendships are also associated with fortable (Stathi & Crisp, 2008; see also Blair, Park, reduced prejudice across extended friendship & Bachelor, 2003). Television shows portraying networks; individuals whose friends have out- charismatic outgroup members and positive group member friends tend to have reduced intergroup contact have been found to reduce prejudice (Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns & Voci, prejudice (Schiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, 2005; see 2004; Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, 2010; R. also Paluck & Green, 2009a). Prejudice reduction N. Turner, Hewstone, Voci, Paolini, & Christ, can also result from perspective-taking exercises, 2007; R. N. Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & such as imagining being a member of the target Vonofakou, 2008). Contact that disconfirms ste- group (Batson, Early, & Salvarini, 1997; Batson, reotypes can also lead to more generalized, Eidelman, Higley, & Russell, 2001). For instance, open-minded attitudes and flexible thinking writing an essay from the perspective of an out- (Crisp & Hewstone, 2007; Crisp & Turner, 2011; group member going through an important life Gocłowska, Crisp, & Labuschagne, 2013). event can reduce subsequent stereotyping of Mechanisms mediating the effects of intergroup members of that group (Galinsky & Moskowitz, contact include reduced anxiety about future 2000). interactions, increased liking through familiarity, Interventions involving contact, imagined and increased empathy and perspective-taking contact, and perspective-taking have been utilized (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). within the context of interfaith dialogue and reli- Prejudice-reducing effects are greater if gious peacebuilding, sometimes in high-conflict groups are initially primed with positive affirma- circumstances (e.g., Abu-Nimer, 1996a, 1996b, tion of their distinct group identities (see Brown 2008; Gopin, 1997; Johnston & Sampson, 1995; & Hewstone, 2005). If members are criticized for Lederach, 1995; Paolini et al., 2004; Smock, 2006; having a distinct group identity, or if characteris- Swart et al., 2010). These interventions have tics of their group are criticized, then triggering often drawn on a mixture of techniques, includ- of intergroup anxiety can lead to an increase in ing imagination-based exercises and perspective- prejudice (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Stephan & taking, affirmation of positive distinct identities, Stephan, 2000). There are also conditions under and ingroup bonding, followed by structured dia- which contact will backfire. If co-operators fail to logue with outgroup members, cooperative vol- achieve their goal, then the overall effect can unteering, and so on (Smock, 2006). These entrench prejudice, rather than reduce it; and if interventions have also often involved facilitating groups have identical tasks, then this can some- opportunities for members of different groups to times lead to intergroup anxiety, causing the indi- listen to one another’s experiences in a structured viduals’ sense of positive group identity to be setting (Smock, 2006). An interesting direction threatened, leading to defensiveness and hostility for future research would be for social psycholo- (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). gists to collaborate more extensively with inter- Reduced prejudice can also follow from faith groups to examine the relative effectiveness merely imagining positive contact with outgroup of different contact-based techniques in diverse members (Crisp, Stathi, Turner, & Husnu, 2008; settings. Crisp & Turner, 2009; Miles & Crisp, 2014; R. N. Finally, leadership and perceived norms can Turner & Crisp, 2010). For instance, reading a both play influential roles. Examples set by

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16 leaders can substantially influence a community’s Conclusion beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours (Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998). In this paper, we have proposed that religious Moreover, people’s attitudes are often influenced communities can in principle either promote or by their beliefs about what is normative for their reduce prejudice amongst their members. Their group; being told that the majority of members influence will depend upon the specific beliefs, of their group hold a belief makes people more attitudes, and practices of the community, and on likely to report that they also hold this belief their interaction with the broader society in which (Crandall & Stangor, 2005; Levy et al., 1998; they are based. We have hypothesized that reli- Stangor, Sechrist, & Jost, 2001). A religious com- gious communities will tend to reduce prejudice munity’s traditions are often considered sources to the extent that they do the following. of moral and spiritual guidance, reflecting the cumulative moral knowledge of that community. Generalized World-Views This suggests that religious groups might be able to reduce prejudice by raising awareness of prej- 1. Teach that differences between social udice-reducing norms from the community’s tra- groups are often driven by differences in ditions, such as norms of intergroup fellowship circumstances, instead of innate or essen- and cooperation. tial group characteristics. A number of potential objections might be 2. Teach pluralistic and inclusive theologies. raised regarding the findings discussed in this section. One is that the contact hypothesis has Society-Specific Social Beliefs most often been tested in lower conflict settings, and further research is needed to understand the 3. Challenge prejudice-supporting ideolo- effects of contact in higher intensity conflict sit- gies, and support mobilization around uations, and across a wider range of cultural con- egalitarian social messages. texts (Paluck & Green, 2009b). It is also worth 4. Draw attention to positive common emphasizing a second concern, which relates to a ingroup identities, while also making sali- potential “sedative” effect of intergroup contact. ent positive distinct identities of different Religion has sometimes been used as a vehicle subgroups. for collective action, and this is one important way in which it may support reduced prejudice Behaviours (Harvey, 2011; Morris, 1984). However, inter- group contact may have a “sedative” effect on 5. Foster intergroup contact, friendship, and collective action (Cakal, Hewstone, Schwär, & cooperation; model sympathetic perspec- Heath, 2011; van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, tive-taking; and create opportunities to 2008). By reducing threat and increasing liking imaginatively explore the experiences of between groups, it may make disadvantaged outgroup members. groups less likely to resist unjust social relations. It may also have a sedative effect by reducing In relation to each of these hypotheses, it is likely perceptions of relative deprivation, and by that guidance from religious leaders and the tradi- reducing the strength of ingroup identification tion’s perceived norms may be particularly influ- (Cakal et al., 2011). These hypotheses, therefore, ential. In outlining these hypotheses, our aim has should be regarded only as a starting point. More been to indicate possible directions for future sophisticated developments would integrate con- research. We hope that readers will test these tact theory with theories of collective action hypotheses, and will identify further hypotheses (Cakal et al., 2011; van Zomeren et al., 2008; by drawing on their own expertise in prejudice Wright, 2009). research. There are many reasons for prejudice

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 17 researchers to develop sophisticated understand- Allport, G. W. (1966). The religious context of preju- ings of the diverse influences of religion on inter- dice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 447– group attitudes. First, as we have seen, religion 457. doi:10.2307/1384172 may sometimes be a vehicle through which social Altemeyer, B. (2009). Why do religious fundamental- hierarchies are enforced. Second, religion has also ists tend to be prejudiced? International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, 17–28. doi:10.1207/ played important roles historically in movements S15327582IJPR1301_03 to challenge prejudice and unjust social hier- Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarian- arches. Finally, the vast majority of people around ism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and preju- the world today identify with a religious faith. A dice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, sophisticated appreciation of how religious 2, 113–133. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5 groups can reduce prejudice may be important Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised Reli- for improving intergroup relations in many com- gious Fundamentalism Scale: The short and sweet munities around the world. of it. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 47–54. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_4 Acknowledgements Andreychik, M. R., & Gill, M. J. (2015). Do natural kind beliefs about social groups contribute to prejudice? This paper has benefited greatly from the constructive Distinguishing bio-somatic essentialism from bio- and insightful guidance of the editorial team and behavioral essentialism, and both of these from reviewers at Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. The entitativity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, authors would like to offer special thanks to our editor, 18, 454–474. doi:10.1177/1368430214550341 Barbara Masser, and to Ken Mavor and Jo-Ann Tsang Appleby, R. S. (2000). The ambivalence of the sacred: Reli- for invaluable input and guidance. We also thank col- gion, violence, and reconciliation. New York, NY: leagues at University of Bristol, Cardiff University, and Rowman & Littlefield. the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). Cooperation in the class- University. room: The jigsaw method. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Funding Atack, I. (2012). Nonviolence in political theory. Edinburgh, This research was funded with a grant from the UK UK: Edinburgh University Press. Arts and Humanities Research Council (Standard Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004). Religion’s evo- Grant AH/F019513/1) awarded to Stephen Clarke lutionary landscape: Counterintuition, com- and Julian Savulescu, and hosted by the Uehiro Centre mitment, compassion, communion. Behavioural for Practical Ethics at Oxford University. and Brain Sciences, 27, 713–779. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X04000172 Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological References foundations and dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cam- Abu-Nimer, M. (1996a). Conflict resolution bridge University Press. approaches: Western and Middle Eastern les- Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2011). Socio-psycholog- sons and possibilities. American Journal of Eco- ical barriers to conflict resolution. In D. Bar-Tal nomics and Sociology, 55, 35–52. doi:10.1111/ (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: Social psy- j.1536-7150.1996.tb02706.x chological perspectives (pp. 217–240). New York, NY: Abu-Nimer, M. (1996b). Conflict resolution in an Psychology Press. Islamic context. Peace and Change, 21, 22–40. Bar-Tal, D., Sharvit, K., Halperin, E., & Zafran, A. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0130.1996.tb00253.x (2012). Ethos of conflict: The concept and its Abu-Nimer, M. (2008). A framework for nonviolence measurement. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psy- and peacebuilding in Islam. Journal of Law and Reli- chology, 18, 40–61. doi:10.1037/a0026860 gion, 15, 217–265. doi:10.2307/1051519 Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New double agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli- York, NY: Macmillan. gion, 15, 29–45. doi:10.2307/1384312 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, Batson, C. D. (2013). Individual religion, tolerance, and MA: Addison-Wesley. universal compassion. In S. Clarke, R. Powell &

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 18

J. Savulescu (Eds.), Religion, intolerance, and conflict: Brewer, M. B. (2000). Reducing prejudice through A scientific and conceptual investigation (pp. 88–106). cross-categorization: Effects of multiple social Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. identities. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarini, G. (1997). Per- and discrimination (pp. 165–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erl- spective taking: Imagining how another feels baum. versus imagining how you would feel. Person- Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y. Y., & Li, Q. (2013). Dynamic ality & Social Personality Bulletin, 23, 751–758. entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. doi:10.1177/0146167297237008 Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd & O. Corneille (Eds.), The Batson, C. D., Eidelman, S. H., Higley, S. L., & Rus- psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entita- sell, S. A. (2001). “And who is my neighbor?” II: tivity, and essentialism (pp. 25–38). New York, NY: Quest religion as a source of universal compas- Psychology Press. sion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1985). The psychol- 39–50. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ ogy of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual stable/1388179 Review of Psychology, 36, 219–243. doi:10.1146/ Batson, C. D., Naifeh, S. J., & Pate, S. (1978). Social annurev.ps.36.020185.001251 desirability, religious orientation, and racial prej- Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact udice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17, hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegre- 31–41. doi:10.2307/1385425 gation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P. A., & Ventis, W. L. in contact: The psychology of desegregation. Orlando, FL: (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psycholog- Academic Press. ical perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1988). Contact and Press. cooperation: When do they work? In P. Katz Batson, C. D., & Stocks, E. L. (2005). Religion and & D. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio, P. S. Glick & L. A. controversy (pp. 315–326). New York, NY: Ple- Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years num. after Allport (pp. 413–427). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Brown, R., & Adams, D. (1986). The effects of inter- Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Rogers-Croak, group similarity and goal interdependence on M., & Miller, N. (1992). Cooperation and intergroup attitudes and task performance. Jour- the reduction of intergroup bias: The role of nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 78–92. reward structure and social orientation. Journal doi:10.1016/0022–1031(86)90041–7 of Experimental Social Psychology, 280, 301–319. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative doi:10.1016/0022–1031(92)90048-O theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna Blair, I. V., Park, B., & Bachelor, J. (2003). Under- (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. standing intergroup anxiety: Are some people 255–343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. more anxious than others? Group Processes and Burch-Brown, F. (2013). Oxford handbook of religion Intergroup Relations, 6, 151–169. doi:10.1177/ and the arts. New York, NY: Oxford University 1368430203006002002 Press. Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2010). The role of prejudice Cakal, H., Hewstone, M., Schwär, G., & Heath, A. and the need for closure in religious fundamen- (2011). An investigation of the social identity talism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, model of collective action and the “sedative” 715–725. doi:10.1177/0146167210366306 effect of intergroup contact among Black and Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2014). To love or hate thy White students in South Africa. British Journal of neighbor: The role of authoritarianism and tradi- Social Psychology, 50, 606–627. doi:10.1111/j.2044- tionalism in explaining the link between funda- 8309.2011.02075.x mentalism and racial prejudice. Political Psychology, Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. 35, 207–223. doi:10.1111/pops.12077 (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. towards refugees: Testing different models of Oxford, UK: Academic Press. extended contact. Child Development, 77, 1208– Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the 1219. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2006.00929.x same and different at the same time. Personal- Cehajic-Clancy, S., Effron, D., Halperin, E., Liberman, ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. V., & Ross, L. D. (2011). Affirmation, acknowl- doi:10.1177/0146167291175001 edgment of in-group responsibility, guilt, and

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 19

support for reparation. Journal of Personality and and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology, 101, 256–270. doi:10.1037/ Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 332–351. a0023936 doi:10.1177/1088868311411103 Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay Dorrien, G. (2011). Social ethics in the making: Interpreting dispositions and implicit theories of personality. an American tradition. Oxford, UK: Blackwells. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19–30. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, doi:10.1037/0022–3514.73.1.19 K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). Extend- Clobert, M., & Saroglou, V. (2013). Intercultural ing the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, non-conscious influences: Prosocial effects of self-disclosure, and helping. Journal of Experimen- Buddhist priming on Westerners of Christian tra- tal Social Psychology, 33, 401–420. doi:10.1006/ dition. International Journal for Intercultural Relations, jesp.1997.1327 37, 459–466. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.10.001 Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authori- Clobert, M., Saroglou, V., Hwang, K. K., & Soong, tarianism, social dominance orientation, and the W. L. (2014). East Asian religious tolerance— dimensions of generalized prejudice. European A myth or reality? Empirical investigations of Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130. doi:10.1002/ religious prejudice in East Asian societies. Jour- per.614 nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1515–1533. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, doi:10.1177/0022022114546641 prejudice, and politics: A dual process motiva- Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal- tional model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894. status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.2010.00672.x American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120. Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Pro- doi:10.3102/00028312032001099 moting change in the Middle East, the school- Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different yard, the racial divide, and willpower. American emotional reactions to different groups: A soci- Psychologist, 67, 614–622. doi:10.1037/a0029783 ofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice.” Esposito, J. L., Fasching, D. J., & Lewis, T. T. (2014). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770– World religions today. New York, NY: Oxford Uni- 789. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.88.5.770 versity Press. Crandall, C. S., & Stangor, C. (2005). Conformity and Fredrickson, G. M. (2009). Racism: A short introduction. prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio, P. S. Glick & L. A. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). Reducing inter- after Allport (pp. 295–309). Oxford, UK: Wiley. group bias: The common ingroup identity model. New Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social York, NY: Psychology Press. categorization. Advances in Experimental Social Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspec- Psychology, 39, 163–254. doi:10.1016/S0065– tive taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, 2601(06)39004–1 stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Crisp, R. J., Stathi, S., Turner, R. N., & Husnu, S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708– (2008). Imagined intergroup contact: Theory, 724. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.78.4.708 paradigm, and practice. Personality and Social Psy- Gervais, W. M., Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. chology Compass, 2, 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1751– (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is cen- 9004.2008.00155.x tral to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined and Social Psychology, 101, 1189–1206. doi:10.1037/ interactions produce positive perceptions? Reduc- a0025882 ing prejudice through simulated social contact. Gocłowska, M. A., Crisp, R. J., & Labuschagne, K. American Psychologist, 64, 231–240. doi:10.1037/ (2013). Can counter-stereotypes boost flexible a0014718 thinking? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adap- 217–231. doi:10.1177/1368430212445076 tation to the experience of social and cultural Gopin, M. (1997). Religion, violence and conflict reso- diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 242–266. lution. Peace and Change, 22, 1–31. doi:10.1111/ doi:10.1037/a0021840 0149–0508.00035 Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Reli- & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships gions bind individuals into moral communities.

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 20

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. Haslam, A. S., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. doi:10.1177/1088868309353415 (2009). Social identity, health, and well-being: Gries, P., Su, J., & Schak, D. (2012). Toward the scien- An emerging agenda for applied psychology. tific study of polytheism: Beyond forced-choice Applied Psychology, 58, 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1464– measures of religious belief. Journal for the Scien- 0597.2008.00379.x tific Study of Religion, 51, 623–627. doi:10.1111/ Heim, M. (1995). Salvations: Truth and difference in reli- j.146859062012.01683.x gions. New York, NY: Orbis Books. Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, Hill, E. D., Cohen, A. B., Terrell, H. K., & Nagoshi, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prej- C. T. (2010). The role of social cognition in the udice? Integrating individual and contextual religious fundamentalism–prejudice relationship. determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 724–739. of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721. doi:10.1111/j.1468–5906.2010.01542.x doi:10.1037/0022–3514.84.4.697 Holmes, N. (2014). Lost in translation? Multiple reli- Guimond, S., Sablonniére, R., & Nugier, A. (2014). Liv- gious participation and religious fidelity. Journal of ing in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies Religion, 94, 425–435. doi:10.1086/677286 and the societal context of intergroup relations. Holoien, D. S., & Shelton, J. N. (2012). You deplete European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 142–188. me: The cognitive costs of colorblindness doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.957578 on ethnic minorities. Journal of Experimental Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why Social Psychology, 48, 652–656. doi:10.1016/j. don’t we practice what we preach? A meta-ana- jesp.2011.09.010 lytic review of religious racism. Personality and Hood, R. W., Jr.., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The Social Psychology Review, 14, 126–139. doi:10.1177/ psychology of religion: An empirical approach (4th ed.). 1088868309352179 New York, NY: Guilford Press. Halperin, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2011). Social-psycho- Hood, R. W., Jr.., Hill, P. C., & Williamson, W. P. logical barriers to peace making: An empirical (2005). The psychology of religious fundamentalism. New examination within the Israeli Jewish society. York, NY: Guilford Press. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 637–651. doi:10.1177/ Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation 0022343311412642 and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup Halperin, E., Crisp, R.J., Husnu, S., Trzesniewski, relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, K.H., Dweck, C.S., & Gross, J.J. (2012). Pro- 143–156. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_03 moting intergroup contact by changing beliefs: Hughes, M., Kiecolt, K. J., Keith, V. M., & Demo, E. Group malleability, intergroup anxiety, and H. (2015). Racial identity and well-being among contact motivation. Emotion, 12, 1192–1195. African Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 20, doi:10.1037/a0028620 1–24. doi:10.1177/0190272514554043 Halperin, E., Russell, A. G., Trzesniewski, K. H., Hunsberger, B., & Jackson, L. M. (2005). Religion, Gross, J. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Promoting meaning, and prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 61, the Middle East peace process by changing beliefs 807–826. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2005.00433.x about group malleability. Science, 333, 1767–1769. Hyers, L. L., & Hyers, C. (2008). Everyday discrimi- doi:10.1126/science.1202925 nation experienced by conservative Christians at Harris, F. C. (1999). Something within: Religion in African- the secular university. Analyses of Social Issues and American political activism. New York, NY: Oxford Public Policy, 8, 113–137. doi:10.1111/j.1530– University Press. 2415.2008.00162.x Harvey, P. (2005). Freedom’s coming: Religious culture and Irons, C. F. (2009). Origins of proslavery Christianity: White the shaping of the south from the Civil War through the and Black evangelicals in colonial and antebellum Vir- Civil Rights era. Chapel Hill: University of North ginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Carolina Press. Press. Harvey, P. (2011). Through the storm, through the night: A Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of history of African American Christianity. Plymouth, contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, per- UK: Rowman and Littlefield. ceived out-group variability, and out-group atti- Hashmi, S. (2003). The Qur’an and tolerance: An inter- tude: An integrative model. Personality and Social pretive essay on Verse 5:48. Journal of Human Rights, Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. doi:10.1177/ 2, 81–103. doi:10.1080/1475483032000054978 0146167293196005

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 21

Jackson, L.M., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). An inter- Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). group perspective on religion and prejudice. Jour- Stereotype formation and endorsement: The nal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 509–523. role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and doi:10.2307/1387609 Social Psychology, 74, 421–436. doi:10.1037/0022– Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., Barnard-Brak, L. M., 3514.74.6.1421 Patock-Peckham, J. A., LaBouff, J. P., & Carl- Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Laythe, B. (2011). Reli- isle, R. D. (2011). A mediational analysis of the gion, prejudice, and authoritarianism: Is RWA role of right-wing authoritarianism and religious a boon or bane to the psychology of religion? fundamentalism in the religiosity–prejudice link. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50, 22–43. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 851–856. doi:10.1111/j.1468–5906.2010.01550.x doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.010 Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). A Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. bias-corrected exploratory and confirmatory factor (2010). Priming Christian religious concepts analysis of right-wing authoritarianism: Support for increases racial prejudice. Social Psychological a three-factor structure. Personality and Individual Dif- and Personality Science, 1, 119–126. doi:10.1177/ ferences, 48, 28–33. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.006 1948550609357246 McKim, R. (2012). On religious diversity. New York, NY: Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. P. Oxford University Press. (2012). Religiosity and prejudice revisited: In- Meister, C. V. (2010). Oxford handbook of religious diversity. group favoritism, out-group derogation, or both? New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, 154–168. Miles, E., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of doi:10.1037/a0025107 the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes Johnston, D., & Sampson, C. (1995). Religion, the miss- and Intergroup Relations, 17, 3–26. doi:10.1177/ ing dimension of statecraft. New York, NY: Oxford 1368430213510573 University Press. Morris, A. D. (1984). The origins of the Civil Rights Move- Juergensmeyer, M. (2006). The Oxford handbook of global ment. New York: Free Press. religions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social dis- Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1990). Intrin- crimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: sic–extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174. doi:10.1207/ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 442–462. s15327957pspr0302_4 doi:10.2307/1387311 Newheiser, A. K., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Schmid, K., Knitter, P. (2003). Introducing theologies of religions. New Zick, A., & Küpper, B. (2013). Social-psycholog- York, NY: Orbis. ical aspects of religion and prejudice: Evidence Kunst, J. R., Thomsen, L., & Sam, D. L. (2014). Late from survey and experimental research. In S. Abrahamic reunion? Religious fundamental- Clarke, R. Powell & J. Savulescu (Eds.), Religion, ism negatively predicts dual Abrahamic group intolerance, and conflict: A scientific and conceptual inves- categorization among Muslims and Christians. tigation (pp. 107–125). Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni- European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 337–348. versity Press. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2014 Olson, L. R. (2014). From the editor: Toward a Landis, D., Hope, R. O., & Day, H. R. (1984). Training more internationally inclusive study of religion. for desegregation in the military. In N. Miller & Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53, v–vi. M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology doi:10.1111/jssr.12119 of desegregation (pp. 257–278). Orlando, FL: Aca- Paloutzian, R.F., & Park, C.L. (2013). Handbook of the demic Press. psychology of religion and spirituality. New York, NY: Laythe, B., Finkel, D. G., Bringle, R. G., & Kirkpat- Guilford Press. rick, L. A. (2002). Religious fundamentalism as a Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice predictor of prejudice: A two-component model. and conflict using the media: A field experiment Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 623–635. in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doi:10.1111/1468–5906.00142 96, 574–587. doi:10.1037/a0011989 Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict trans- Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009a). Deference dis- formation across cultures. New York, NY: Syracuse sent and dispute resolution: A field experiment on University Press. a mass media intervention in Rwanda. American

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 22

Political Science Review, 103, 622–644. doi:10.1017/ Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Examining S0003055409990128 the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009b). Prejudice on perceived threat, state reactance, and reactance reduction: What works? A review and assess- restoration. Human Communication Research, 34, ment of research and practice. Annual Review of 448–476. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.2008.00328.x Psychology, 60, 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev. Rowatt, W. C., Carpenter, T., & Haggard, M. (2013). psych.60.110707.163607 Religion, prejudice and intergroup relations. In Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. V. Saroglou (Ed.), Religion, personality and social (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross- behavior (pp. 170–192). New York, NY: Psychol- group friendships on judgments of Catholics and ogy Press. Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating Rowatt, W. C., LaBouff, J., Johnson, M. K., Froese, P., & role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Per- Tsang, J. (2009). Associations among religiousness, sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786. social attitudes, and prejudice in a national random doi:10.1177/0146167203262848 sample of American adults. Psychology of Religion and Parmagent, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and cop- Spirituality, 1, 14–24. doi:10.1037/ a0014989 ing: Theory, research, practice. New York, NY: Guil- Saroglou, V. (2011). Believing, bonding, behaving, and ford Press. belonging: The big four religious dimensions and Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-ana- cultural variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, lytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal 42, 1320–1340. doi:10.1177/0022022111412267 of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. Saroglou, V. (Ed.). (2013). Religion, personality and behav- doi:10.1037/0022–3514.90.5.751 iour. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does inter- Saroglou, V., & Cohen, A. B. (Eds.). (2011). Psychology group contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic of culture and religion: Introduction to the JCCP tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social special issue. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, Psychology, 38, 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504 1309–1319. doi:10.1177/0022022111412254 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups Schiappa, E., Gregg, P., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York, The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communi- NY: Psychology Press. cation Monographs, 72, 92–115. doi:10.1080/ Pew Research Center. (2014). Worldwide, many see belief 0363775052000342544 in God as essential for morality. Richer nations are excep- Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value pri- tions. Retrived from http://www.pewglobal.org/ orities and religiosity in four Western reli- files/2014/03/Pew-Research-Center-Global- gions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88–107. Attitudes-Project-Belief-in-God-Report-FINAL- doi:10.2307/2787148 March-13-2014.pdf Sedikides, C., & Gebauer, J. E. (2010). Religiosity as Pew Research Center. (2015a). The future of world religions: self-enhancement: A meta-analysis of the relation Population growth projections, 2010–2050. Retrieved between socially desirable responding and religi- from http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/03/ osity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsFullReport.pdf 17–36. doi:10.1177/1088868309351002 Pew Research Center. (2015b). Latest trends in religious Shen, M. J., Yelderman, L. A., Haggard, M. C., & restrictions and hostilities. Retrieved from http:// Rowatt, W. C. (2013). Disentangling the belief in www.pewforum.org/files/2015/02/Restric- God and cognitive rigidity/flexibility components tions2015_fullReport.pdf of religiosity to predict racial and value-violating Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). prejudice: A Post-Critical Belief Scale analysis. Is multiculturalism or color blindness better Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 389–395. for minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444–446. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.008 doi:10.1111/j.1467–9280.2009.02318.x Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament. Boston, MA: Preston, J. L., Ritter, R. S., & Hernandez, J. I. (2010). Houghton Mifflin. Principles of religious prosociality: A review and Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An reformulation. Social and Personality Compass, 4, intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cam- 574–590. doi:10.1111/j.1751–9004.2010.00286.x bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Burch-Brown and Baker 23

Smock, D. R. (2006). Religious contributions to peacemaking: (pp. 345–360). Washington, DC: American Psy- When religion brings peace, not war. Washington, DC: chological Association. United States Institute of Peace. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Blackwell. 27, 486–496. doi:10.1177/0146167201274009 Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, Stathi, S., & Crisp, R. (2008). Imagining intergroup C. A. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and contact promotes projection to outgroups. Jour- social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle- nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 943–957. tin, 20, 454–463. doi:10.1177/0146167294205002 doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.003 Turner, R. N., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Explaining the Stausberg, M., & Engler, S. (2013). The Routledge hand- relationship between ingroup identification and book of research methods in the study of religion. New intergroup bias following recategorization: A York, NY: Routledge. self-regulation theory analysis. Group Processes and Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role Intergroup Relations, 13, 251–261. doi:10.1177/ of threat in intergroup relations. In D. M. 1368430209351702 Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Paolini, S., intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social & Christ, O. (2007). Reducing prejudice via groups (pp. 191–207). New York, NY: Psychol- direct and extended cross-group friendship. ogy Press. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 212–255. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An inte- doi:10.1080/10463280701680297 grated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofa- (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23– kou, C. (2008). A test of the extended contact 45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup Suedfeld, P., Leighton, D. C., & Conway, L. G. (2006). anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, Integrative complexity and cognitive management and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Jour- in international confrontations. In M. Fitzduff & nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 843–860. C. Stout (Eds.), The psychology of resolving global con- doi:10.1037/a0011434 flicts (pp. 211–237). Westport, CT: Praeger. Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Swart, H., Hewstone, M., Christ, O., & Voci, A. (2010). Toward an integrative social identity model of The impact of cross-group friendships in South collective action: A quantitative research synthesis Africa: Affective mediators and multi-group of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psycho- comparisons. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 309–333. logical Bulletin, 134, 504–535. doi:10.1037/0033- doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2010.01647.x 2909.134.4.504 Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English manu- Verkuyten, M. (2007). Religious group identification script of “La catégorisation sociale.” In S. Mos- and inter-religious relations: A study among covici (Ed.), Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Group Processes & (pp.272–302). Paris, France:Larousse. Intergroup Relations, 10, 341–357. doi:10.1177/ Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative the- 1368430207078695 ory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Verkuyten, M., & Yildiz, A.A. (2007). National (dis) Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup rela- identification, and ethnic and religious identity: tions (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. A study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Person- Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1448–1462. ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and doi:10.1177/0146167207304276 Social Psychology, 50, 819–827. doi:10.1037/0022– Washington, J. M. (1986). The essential writings and 3514.50.4.819 speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York, NY: Tsang, J. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Measur- HarperOne. ing religious constructs: A hierarchical approach Whitley, B. E. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward to construct organization and scale selection. In lesbians and gay men: A meta-analysis. Interna- S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psycho- tional Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 21–38. logical assessment: A handbook of models and measures doi:10.1080/10508610802471104

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 24

Williams, R. J. (2013). Network hubs and opportunity Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). for complex thinking among young British Mus- Religiosity as identity: Toward an understand- lims. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52, ing of religion from a social identity perspective. 573–595. doi:10.1111/jssr.12050 Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 60–71. Wright, S. C. (2009). The next generation of collective doi:10.1177/1088868309349693 action research. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 859–879. Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2011). doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2009.01628.x Coping with identity threat: The role of reli- Yogeeswaran, K., & Dasgupta, N. (2014). The devil gious orientation and implications for emotions is in the details: Abstract versus concrete con- and action intentions. Psychology of Religion and struals of multiculturalism differentially impact Spirituality, 3, 132–148. doi:10.1037/a0021599 intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C. M., & Corneille, O. (Eds.). (2004). The Social Psychology, 106, 772–789. doi:10.1037/ psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, a0035830 and essentialism. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on April 27, 2016