The Effects of Religious Fundamentalism and Threat on Prejudice

The study investigated the relation of religious fundamentalism (RF) and prejudice in the presence of two threat conditions: epistemic uncertainty, introduced via threat to beliefs, and existential threat, presented through mortality salience induction. A model of RF as a belief system adopted to manage uncertainty and threat was also presented. Participants were 396 undergraduates, 192 of whom met inclusion requirements. RF was significantly related to prejudice toward women, toward homosexual individuals, and toward other religions, the latter relationship being strongest. No significant effects for threat condition were found. Results indicate that the uncertainty and/or threat introduced by the target groups varied in magnitude and that this uncertainty and/or threat was stronger than that posed by the threat conditions. Fundamentalism and threat 4 The Effects of Religious Fundamentalism and Threat on Prejudice The term, fundamentalism, was initially coined in the United States in 1910 in a series of articles entitled, The Fundamentals (Gatewood, 1969; Johnstone, 1997). The Fundamentals consisted of nine principles created by Protestant religious leaders in the United States in response to modernism, liberalism, and secularism, which advocated a return to the basics of Christian faith (Gatewood, 1969; Johnstone, 1997; Sim, 2004). The term fundamentalism began as pertaining solely to Christianity, though it has since been applied to other faiths that also call for a “return to the basics” within their religions (e.g. Fundamentalist Orthodox Jews, Islamic Fundamentalists) (Johnstone, 1997). Globally, fundamentalism gained initial notice during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 (Chafe, 1999). Since that time, fundamentalism has continued to spread throughout the world. Globalization and the opposition to it have influenced the worldwide expansion of fundamentalism. As traditional cultures are disrupted, displaced, and endangered by the forces of globalization, including modernism, liberalism, and secularism, these cultures muster resistance to the accompanying uncertainty and sense of threat; unfortunately, all too often this struggle has taken violent form (Salzman, 2008). Because religious fundamentalism comes with perilous implications, understanding the psychology of fundamentalism is vital. Despite their theological differences, fundamentalists of most religions are typified by three beliefs: (a) they (and others) must return to the basics of the true faith; (b) there is one standard of truth (e.g. the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran), which is contested by evil; and (c) believers have a special relationship with God, which includes doing God’s work on Earth so that they may live in the hereafter (Altemeyer & Fundamentalism and threat 5 Hunsberger, 1992; Johnstone, 1997). Fundamentalists of different religions also share similar attitudes and behaviors, including a consistent association with prejudice and discrimination (Altemeyer, 2003; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992, 1993; Fulton, Gorsuch, & Maynard, 1999; Hunsberger, 1995, 1996; Hunsberger, Owusu, & Duck, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1993; McFarland, 1989). Religious Fundamentalism and Prejudice Most religions contain teachings that advocate treating one’s neighbors with loving kindness. Yet, early researchers found that being religious was associated with prejudice and began to examine this phenomenon more fully (see e.g., Batson, 1976 or Batson, Floyd, Meyer, & Winner, 1999). As different facets and orientations of religion were explored for their contributions to prejudice, fundamentalism began to be investigated (see e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1993, McFarland, 1989, or Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). Religious fundamentalism has been shown to be correlated with various prejudices, including that toward women, homosexual individuals, and individuals of other religious faiths (Altemeyer, 2003; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992, 1993; Fulton et al., 1999; Hunsberger, 1995, 1996; Hunsberger et al., 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1993; McFarland, 1989). Women As women are approximately one-half of the world’s population, prejudice toward them has both global and personal, daily consequence; being viewed as less than equal sanctions disrespect and maltreatment. Nevertheless, religious fundamentalism has been repeatedly associated with sexist attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward women. Two early studies on religious fundamentalism and prejudice investigated Fundamentalism and threat 6 specifically the desire to discriminate against women and to restrict women’s roles in society and the family based on sex. The first study, using Caucasian Christian undergraduate participants from the United States and a six-item Christian specific measurement of religious fundamentalism, found religious fundamentalism was positively and significantly correlated with prejudice toward women (McFarland, 1989). The second study was a near replication of the first, except the participants included undergraduates from the United States and Canada of both Christian and non-Christian affiliations, though because the same six-item measurement of religious fundamentalism was used, the non-Christians were relegated automatically to non-fundamentalist status neglecting that they may have been high in fundamentalism in their own religions. Results indicated religious fundamentalism was again significantly associated with prejudice against women (Kirkpatrick, 1993), although the strength of the correlation was greatly diminished from that found in the previous study, which may have been due to the methodological difficulties mentioned. These two early studies suggested that Biblical literalism could explain the prejudice toward women, as the Bible relegates women to a subservient status to men, (McFarland, 1989; Kirkpatrick, 1993). Yet, religious beliefs also encourage compassion towards others and do not seem to explain adequately of their own accord why prejudice toward women is tolerable. The researchers further conjectured that fundamentalism might be a way of knowing composed of a closed-mindedness that spills over into the attitudes of those high in fundamentalism. Closed-mindedness may begin to explain some facets of the relationship with prejudice toward women, but does not offer an explanation as to what it is about closed-mindedness or women that results in persons high in Fundamentalism and threat 7 fundamentalism exhibiting this prejudice. A later study examined fundamentalism and sexist attitudes toward women, including advocating more traditional behaviors and roles for women, in religions other than Christianity, as well as in Christianity and Islam in another country (Hunsberger et al., 1999). This study employed Altemeyer and Hunsberger’s (1992) Religious Fundamentalism Scale, which measures fundamentalism based upon the manner in which persons hold their religious beliefs, not on the specific content of those beliefs. For example, one item states, “To lead the best, most meaningful life, one must belong to the one, true religion” (p. 131), which applies equally well to Christianity or other religions. Participants included Christian and Muslim university students from Ghana, along with Christian and non-Christian university students from Canada (Hunsberger et al., 1999). Religious fundamentalism was significantly correlated with prejudice toward women for the Ghanaian Muslims and Canadian Christians, but not for the Ghanaian Christians. The researchers speculated that the more traditional culture of Ghana would be associated with greater prejudice toward women and were unsure if differences in belief content or some other factor, such as cultural differences in interpretation of the measurement questions, impacted the latter result (Hunsberger et al., 1999). No explanation was provided to address why fundamentalism and prejudice toward women should be related. Nevertheless, these results demonstrated that the relationship between religious fundamentalism and prejudice toward women held across religions and cultures. Beyond simply attitudes toward women, in an examination of religious fundamentalism and discriminatory behavior, Canadian undergraduates from a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds were requested to list values that were important Fundamentalism and threat 8 to them and to rate the extent to which target groups, in this case single mothers and college students, threatened or promoted these values (Jackson & Esses, 1997). Participants then read vignettes that explained that unemployment was high among members of the target groups. The participants next rated the extent to which the members of the target groups were responsible for the unemployment problem and chose from among three types of help they would endorse for the target groups. The three categories of helping included: (a) personal change, which advocated that the unemployed individuals alter themselves and their behaviors to resolve the situation; (b) direct assistance, which called for aid to be given through such acts as provision of employment or monetary gifts; and (c) empowerment, which consisted of help through job incentive and education programs (Jackson & Esses, 1997). Results indicated religious fundamentalism was significantly correlated with perceived value threat from single mothers, but not from students (Jackson & Esses, 1997). Also, for those high in religious fundamentalism, perceived value threat mediated attributions of responsibility such that single mothers were held responsible for their unemployment, but college students were not. Finally, individuals high in religious fundamentalism endorsed personal change for the single mothers as the best manner in which to help them with their employment difficulties, rejecting both the direct assistance and empowerment forms of helping for them. Religious fundamentalism was not associated with sanctioning any particular type of help over the othe