universalism should be conducive to liberty, the fact that religiosity is positively correlated with benevolence, which in turn is correlated with universalism, can be considered circumstantial evidence supporting the hypothesis that religion might be in tension with oppression. As already there have been few empirical investigations relevant to the relation of actual oppression to religion—that is, the broad relation of oppression at the level of a society to the religiosity of the individuals in that society. Norris and Ingelhart (2011) found indirect evidence, using the World Values Survey, that well-developed post-industrial societies were sites of religious decline. Moreover, the vast majority of post-industrial societies are relatively democratic and higher than the world average in their protection of civil liberties and political rights. Thus, religious diminishment, development, and democratic protection of rights and liberties all tend to though the pattern of causal effects between these three variables is unknown. To gain more confidence whether religion actually causes oppression, oppression causes religion, or some third variable (such as lack of human development) causes both, it is important to employ both multiple regression and experimental methods. For our cross-cultural multiple regression investigations, we sampled countries that suffer varying degrees of oppression and then examined whether residents of these countries expressed more or less intense religiosity and conservatism, respectively. We also conducted multiple regressions controlling for human development and other demographic variables to identify independent relationships less likely to lead to spurious causal inferences. Our first two studies thus investigated the degree to which religiosity
one’s worldview and its adherents. “Communion” is regular, often ritualistic, engagement with one’s co-religionists. “Compassion” in Atran and Norenzayan (2004) refers not to concern for relieving the suffering of others, per se, but to the passionate supernatural engagement (and usually explanatory resolution) of common human existential concerns like the fate of human consciousness after death. “Compassion” in this sense might be more appropriately labeled “supernatural resolution of existential concerns.” The variables in the BBC dataset approximating these four features were (1) “theism” (“I have always believed in God” or “I believe in God but have not always” vs. other response), (2) “willing martydrom” (“I would die for my God/beliefs” vs. other response), (3) “religious attendance” (“I regularly attend an organized religious service” vs. other response), and (4) “afterlife belief” (agreement that “death is not the end” vs. other response). As an additional index of religiosity, we measured (5) “prayer frequency” (“regularly” vs. other response), which Ginges et al (2009) previously used as an index of religious belief. Though all five items are dissociable aspects of religiosity, our theoretical interest was in the common element shared by these measures. The measure of conservatism in this sample was a kind of religious/ideological exclusivity: agreement with “My God (beliefs) is the only true God (beliefs)” vs. response. There was no other item in the BBC’s brief survey that better approximated conservatism. Although the item as worded invites a religious interpretation, the inclusion of “beliefs” in parentheses provided an option for a secular exclusivist response. In addition, exclusivity is not one of Atran and Norenzayan’s (2004) four hypothesized features of religiosity. It is, however, close to the dogmatism identified as a feature of conservative motivated cognition (Jost et al, 2003).
Moreover, to assess the relation of the predictor variables to exclusivity, we then performed another set of regressions in which the criterion measure was exclusivity rather than religiosity, and religiosity was controlled along with demographics. To scaffold interpretation of the regression analyses, we first performed correlation analyses among our variables of interest. We examined the zero-order relation between rank in human development and rank in oppression- and variables not only in the 10 countries examined in Study 1 but in all countries for which we had these data (expressing ns at the country level, 148 < ns < 176). Results and Discussion Internal reliability of religiosity The five religion items in Study 1 formed a reliable “religiosity” index when standardized (α = .72). We used the mean of these five items as a single measure of religiosity. relations among religiosity, conservatism, human development, and oppression. Table 2 shows the pattern of relations among religiosity, conservatism, oppression, militarization and human development. As expected, we found that our two indices of oppression were moderately to strongly correlated, that our two indices of militarization were strongly correlated, and that all four indices were intercorrelated, Cronbach’s α = .66. We also found, as expected, that religiosity and conservatism (exclusivity) were notably more predominant in lower HDI countries, and that lower HDI countries suffered notably more oppression. Despite the general empirical overlap between militarization and oppression, and the negative relation between HDI and oppression indices, HDI was positively related or unrelated to our measures of militarization. This means that HDI was confounded with
terms, and particularly that being both religious and low in exclusivity is possible. What is possible and what is likely nevertheless differ. Even within this sample, the religious measures were positively correlated with authoritarianism measures, .16 < rs < .41, ps < .05, and with exclusivity, .28 < rs < .31, ps < .001. For the dependent measures, the six support-for-oppression items and the four support-for-militarization items both showed adequate or near-adequate internal reliability, = .79 and = .62. The 10 items together formed a more reliable index, = .82. Exploratory factor analyses using principle axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation suggested that support for oppression and support for militarization did not form distinguishable factors. The most coherent presentation of the items was a principle components analysis extracting one component. All 10 items (after reversing con-trait items) loaded > .42 on that component, which explained 39.4% of the variance. We thus averaged all items to form an index of support for oppression-militarization. The oppression-militarization index was positively correlated with items adapted from a validated scale of political intolerance (Sullivan, Pierson & Marcus, 1982), regardless of whether the intolerance items were framed as intolerance for people with values similar to participants, r(153) = .52, p < .001, or intolerance for people classed as “enemies” of participants’ values, r(153) = .49, p < .001. Overall sample averages for intolerance of similar others and intolerance of enemies were both well below the scale midpoint of 5, M = 2.83, SD = 1.42 and M = 3.66, SD = 1.51, respectively. Experimental analysis. We performed a preliminary one-way ANOVA to identify whether there was an overall difference between the religiosity first, control and authoritarianism first conditions with regard to the dependent variable: support for
Cohrs, J. C., Maes, J., Moschner, B. & Kielmann, S. (2007). Determinants of human rights attitudes and behavior: A comparison and integration of psychological perspectives. Political Psychology, 28, 441-469. Davis, D. E., Worthington Jr, E. L., Hook, J. N., & Hill, P. C. (2013). Research on religion/spirituality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 233-241. Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: Norton. Doty, R. G., Winter, D. G., Peterson, B. E. & Kemmelmeier, M. (1997). Authoritarianism and American students' attitudes the Gulf War, 1990–1996. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1133-1143. Elms, A. C. & Milgram, S. (1966). Personality characteristics associated with obedience and defiance towards authoritative command. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 282-289. Freedom House (2007). Tables and charts. Retrieved from Ginges, J., Hansen, I. G. & Norenzayan, A. (2009). Religion and support for suicide attacks. Psychological Science, 20, 224-230. Graham, J., Haidt, J. & Nosek, B.A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 96, 1029-1046. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon/Random House. J. & Graham, J (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives may have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116.
Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don’t we practice what we preach? A review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, Hansen, I. G. & Norenzayan, A. (2006). Between yang and yin and heaven and hell: Untangling the complex relationship between religion and intolerance. In P. McNamara (Ed.), Where God and science meet: How brain and evolutionary studies alter our understanding of religion. Vol. 3 (pp. 187-211). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press—Praeger Publishers. Hansen, I.G. & A. (2016). In search of “religion proper”: Intrinsic religiosity and coalitional rigidity make opposing predictions of intergroup hostility across religious groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 835-857. Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369–376. W. (1902/1982). The varieties of religious experience. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., Barnard-Brak, L. M., Patock-Peckham, J. A., LaBouff, J. P., & Carlisle, R. D. (2011). A mediational analysis of the role of authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism in the religiosity–prejudice link. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 851-856. Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. P. (2010). Priming Christian religious concepts increases racial prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 119-126. E. & Fischer, P. (2006). Terror management and religion: Evidence that intrinsic religiousness mitigates worldview defense following mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 553-567. 126-
3 Standardized regression coefficients (β) of the relationship of nation (ranked by predictors) to religiosity and exclusivity indices, with errors for β in parentheses, Study 1 Criterion Regression Predictor Lack of liberty Refugees Military spending Armed forces Religiosity Controlling for Human Development Index (HDI) -.33 (.016) -.20 (014) -.13 (.010) -.24 (.011) Controlling for HDI, demographics, exclusivity -.37 (.014) -.18 (.013) -.13 (.009) -.28 (.010) Exclusivity Controlling for Human Development Index (HDI) .09 (.016) -.03 (.014)a .01 (.010)b .09 (.012) Controlling for HDI, demographics, religiosity .26 (.015) .06 (.013) .06 (.009) .20 (.010) Note. All coefficients were significant at p < .001, unless otherwise indicated. a p < .05 b p > .05, ns. The statistical significance of the relationship between exclusivity and refugees (a) is eliminated once making a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Unstandardized coefficients (b) and 95% confidence intervals for b are available from the authors on request. Minimum residual degrees of freedom in all analyses = 9631.
Table 4 Correlations among religiosity, conservatism, oppression, militarization, and HDI, Study 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Development Index (HDI) (48) -.67*** (48) -.51*** (48) -.25 (46) .17 (47) -.45*** (70121) -.31*** (66102) 2. Lack of liberty (oppression) (52) .67*** (50) .44** (46) .25 (49) .17*** (76272) .26*** (70821) 3. Refugees from country (oppression) (50) .41** (46) .26 (48) .09*** (73825) .17*** (69680) 4. Mil. spending/GDP (militarization) (46) .59*** (46) .15*** .14*** (63647) 5. forces/capita (militarization) (49) -.03*** (72790) .05*** (68629) 6. Religiosity (religiosity) (76272) .20*** (70805) 7. Authoritarianism index (conservatism) (70821) Note. n for each analysis is in parentheses. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001.
6 Sample items in Study 3 scales Scale Category (# of items) Function Sample items Intrinsic Religious Motivation (Hoge, 1972) Religiosity (10) prime, correlate --My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life. -- I feel there are many more important things in life than religion (reversed). Religiosity adapted from BBC and WVS items Religiosity (9) prime --I believe in God --I would die for my beliefs --I have moments of prayer and meditation Right Wing Authoritarianism (Manganelli et al, 2007) Conservatism/ Exclusivity (14) prime, correlate --What our country needs most is disciplined citizens, following national leaders in unity. --It is good that nowadays people have greater freedom to make their own rules and to protest against things they don’t like (reversed). Authoritarianism adapted from WVS items Conservatism/ Exclusivity(4) prime --Having the army rule our country* --Having a strong leader rule our country*