A Politics & Moral Psychology Blog Exploring Political Attitudes Through Moral Psychology

1. 

   David Foye
   February 19th, 2010 - 06:33

   This is the most interesting peice I’ve ever seen on FB. You mention that Chritians are most often tagged to measure religiosity. Is there similar work being conducted for the Muslim community?
2. 

   Ravi
   February 20th, 2010 - 19:33

   Thanks for your comment. The paper I reference is based on a combination of other research, largely in the US and so the religious samples tend to be Christian. I don’t think we have enough of a Muslim sample on our website to see if there are inter-religion differences and our sample likely wouldn’t be representative anyway. I’ll be sure to keep an eye out for stuff that might answer your question though.
3. 

   Ravi
   February 20th, 2010 - 20:58

   I’m cutting/pasting the below exchange from Facebook so that I have it in one place when I revisit this topic. Good ideas/alternative hypotheses ought to be saved.

   They wrote:

   I think it’s about more than group cohesiveness (or entitativity). Ravi suggests that religions are equivalent to marching bands and the Boy Scouts, but the marching band does not necessarily think that the orchestra is filled with heathens. The Hall, Matz, and Wood article differentiates, not between Christians and Atheists, but between those whose religion is unquestioned and unwavering (fundamentalist) and focused on status and hierarchy (extrinsic religiosity), in contrast to those whose religion is is uncertain (agnosticism) and personal (intrinsic religiosity). Religion is a domain that lends itself readily to aggression towards outgroups in a way that the Boy Scouts do not. Hall et al. find that those whose religion is less tolerant of alternative interpretations are also less tolerant in other domains. To control for this tendency (which is what Ravi seems to do with his data) implies that relationship between fundamentalism and racism is spurious. I think it would make more sense to include the moral foundation scale (which is not entirely clear to me, but seems related to fundamentalism-agnosticism) as a moderator of the significant relationship between religion and racism.

   Note that to the extent that blacks exhibit racial bias, it is often in favor of whites, which undermines assumptions that these are just different manifestations of individuals who are inclined to affiliate and favor those with whom they are affiliated.

   I think the classic Sherif minimal group studies with groups of kids shows somewhat how any group (e.g. boy scouts) can become involved in outgroup aggression. Anecdotally, I’ve seen lots of sports oriented aggression, which to me seems like the real life equivalent of a minimal group. I wouldn’t be so sure that there is something inherent in religion, per se, that does not exist in other groups. Personally, I think a variable missing might be something like perceived competition, which fosters intolerance (and MFQ-Authority/Ingroup scores). So people who perceive their religion as in competition with others might also perceive their racial group as in competition with others. But that to me still means that the religion-racism connections is an artifact of other personality differences, rather than causal. The part that most convinces me is that when I looked at religious attendance, the relationship between religion-racism became significantly negative, controlling for MFQ scores.

   Thanks for kicking off an interesting discussion. I don’t think that Sherif shows that any group can become involved in outgroup aggression.He describes a context, competitive interdependence, in which such behavior is likely to arise. In both athletics and religion, outgroup aggression is more likely, though for different reasons. In most cases, sports are zero sum. One group cannot win, unless the other loses. This is a context in which outgroup aggression is almost inevitable. Religion highlights a different contextual factor that arises from Sherif’s work. Superordinate goals reduce outgroup aggression. Hall, Matz, and Wood’s contrast of fundamentalism and agnosticism makes a lot of sense in this context. Fundamentalist religious orders will tend to have a more difficult time identifying superordinate goals with faiths that hold different values, or even the same values to different degrees. Outside of experimental settings, I think that Boy Scouts generally operate in an environment where it is difficult to even identify a specific outgroup, and when they interact with non-Boy Scouts it is overwhelmingly in a context of supporting superordinate goals. The adult equivalent would be service organizations. My point isn’t that they are immune to aggressive tendencies, but that they tend to function in settings that are less likely to stimulate such behavior.

   That’s fair and I might amend my hypothesis to say that some groups attract more fundamentalist or competitive personalities than others. I guess the question then would be whether people who have fundamentalist personalities are attracted to religion or whether certain religions make people fundamentalist. I might substitute “group oriented” or competitive for fundamentalist as I think it’s a clearer personality construct. I don’t know really what it means to be ‘fundamentalist’ as a person. My money would be on the former…that certain group oriented/competitive personalities are attracted to religion and that drives much of the correlation.

   But I will admit that it’s likely that there are some religions which create a competitive urge as you describe, where you have fewer superordinate goals and more competition and therefore outgroup derogation. But I think I’d still call the correlation somewhat spurious as then membership in any competitive group likely correlates with racism…unless you have a different explanation for the mechanism which is specific to religion.

   I suspect the link between personality and group identification is a two way street (though that could jack up your model). They’ve tried to test selection/indoctrination in competitiveness in business/econ departments with mixed results.

   I’m not sure competitiveness is the right measure for what I’m suggesting drives aggression in “fundamentalist” individuals, but I’m not sure what might be better. I have been thinking personal need for structure or Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance, but those don’t seem likely to bleed over into racism. Collective narcissism, maybe? There’s a great recent article by Golec de Zavala, Cichoka, Eidelson, and Jayawickreme in JPSP developing that construct (“an ingroup identification tied to an emotional investment in an unrealistic belief about the unparalleled greatness of an ingroup”). If you haven’t seen it, you should check it out.

   Thanks for the reference and I’ll be sure to check it out.

   My one comment as a liberal is that I would prefer to guard against pathologizing other groups (e.g. religious conservatives) in any attempt to find such a personality variable. For one, I think it might show our fields bias rather than being purely objective…Who is to say where patriotism ends and collective narcissism begins? Why don’t we see research where environmentalism is correlated with anti-corporation bias, which I’m sure is somewhat true…Secondly, I think it causes the opposite reaction in others than what we want…conservatives tune us out or circle their wagons and become even more conservative. Competition has it’s place as it leads to progress (e.g. better JPSP articles)…but it also has it’s downside too. One person’s need for structure is another person’s appreciation of tradition.

   I’ll be sure to check out that test selection/indoctrination in competetiveness research too…maybe that would make a neat manipulation. If you have a reference for that, I’d love to know. Thanks.

Leave a comment