Willful Suspension of Belief
Religious prejudice from the perspective of social psychology

Prepared for:
PSYC 6211
Week 8 Application

The morning of January 20, 2009, I stood on the lawn of the Mall with nearly 2 million other spectators to witness Barack Obama’s inauguration as the President of the United States. Nearness to people from varied backgrounds inevitably led to interesting conversations — about social issues, the economy, and finally religion. During the inaugural address, I heard this: “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers” (Obama, 2009, ¶47). My new acquaintances exclaimed, “hey, that’s you!” on the new President’s mention of nonbelievers. I was simply glad to be explicitly included in a venue that would typically deny (at best ignore) my existence.

photo by Daniel Marsula/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Not everyone experienced my reaction. One religious leader accused President Obama of trying to redefine who we are as a nation. In his words, we are “distinctly Christian” (Hennenberger, 2009, ¶5). In reality, the existence of “In God We Trust” on our currency and “under God” in our pledge has a short history – since the Eisenhower administration, when they were added (in part) as a means of distinguishing Americans from ‘godless Communists’ (Bates, 2004). According to research from the University of Minnesota, “atheists are the most distrusted and disliked minority group in the country” (Niose, 2008, p.17). In a recent Gallup poll, atheists were the minority that Americans were least likely to consider when voting for a President of the United States (45%), well below women (88%), Mormons (72%), and even homosexuals (55%) (Jones, 2007). At prominent levels, this bias continues. President Eisenhower insisted that government makes no sense without deeply-held religious beliefs (‘Religion,’ 2006). While presidential candidate Romney declared, “a person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith” (Allen, 2007, ¶11), he prefaced that by statements that our constitution was written for religious people and that religion is necessary for freedom’s existence (Allen, 2007).

Why are nonbelievers distrusted? Understanding what drives people to accept and like others helps provide perspective.

Schemas/Stereotypes.
Many people have a preconceived notion of what non-believing people look like and behave. While schemas and stereotypes facilitate understanding a world that would otherwise seem too complex, they also can lead people to erroneous judgment (Weiten, 2007). For instance, some hold the idea that without belief in God, atheists are necessarily immoral people (Silverman, 2009).

Illusory Correlation
According to Weiten (2007), people often overestimate how frequently they see expected traits portrayed by stereotyped groups. This leads to confirmation bias, believing one’s own hypothesis based on subjective (albeit, inaccurate) experience. Someone who views Richard Dawkins spewing dozens of negative adjectives about their God may feel that their existing idea of nonbelievers (“atheists are angry and rude”) has been confirmed. They are less likely to remember (or even know) the many times throughout their life that a nonbeliever has held open a door, coached little league, or let them pass in traffic.

Ingroup/Outgroup
By sheer number —around 10% of the American population (‘U.S. Religious,’ 2008) — nonbelievers are more often than not part of an outgroup. During most of human history, sticking close to members of one’s own group has helped to ensure survival. Because of this history, we are instinctively drawn to those who are like us (ingroup). We tend to avoid those who are markedly different from us – or perceived as such (Weiten, 2007).

Attribution Assumptions
When assigning reasoning behind behavior, humans tend to be more forgiving of themselves and of people who are recognized as being “like them.” Alternately, negative actions by an unknown person (or member of an outgroup) are typically labeled as internally motivated. The SUV with a fish on it ran a red light? He must be in a hurry (external attribution). The minivan with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? She’s recklessly disrespectful of the law (internal attribution) (Weiten, 2007). To be fair, I have to admit my own bias here; I might assign the label “hypocrite” to the fish-wearing SUV that cuts me off in traffic!

Similarity of Perceived Experience
We are drawn to those who are like us; our friends and intimates are most often people from similar backgrounds, with similar interests (Weiten, 2007). That said, even more important is the perception of shared experience. Research has demonstrated people prefer objectively dissimilar people who are perceived to have the same subjective experiences as them, even beyond their preference for those who are like them. That is to say, I may come from a background much like Person A, while Person B is quite different. But, because Persons A and B share a similar use of Sunday mornings (church attendance), Person A will likely have a more positive mental image of Person B than of me (Pinel, et al., 2006).

Attitude
Society’s attitude toward atheists has three main components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. It is possible to cognitively hold a positive attitude toward a nonbeliever (“I recognize the right of this person to believe what they believe.”) while still having negative affective (“Atheists scare and disgust me.”) and behavioral (“I will not hire anyone who is a nonbeliever.”) components (Weiten, 2007). The affective – or emotional – portion of attitude has been shown to be more predictive of behavior than intellectual attitudes (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007).

From a review of social psychological principles, it is clear why nonbelievers are still considered a pariah by many, and why the idea of electing an atheist President seems far-fetched. Fortunately, social psychology also indicates what can change nonbelievers’ status. Obama’s “shout-out” in his inaugural address is a powerful start. When a respected person models the behavior of acknowledging nonbelievers, viewers are conditioned to (consciously or otherwise) become more accepting (Weiten, 2007). In my daily life, I am aware of how my own positive interactions can spark cognitive dissonance in people who may otherwise expect nonbelievers to be despicable people. I have watched as my own parents have struggled with the tension between the competing ideas of “Atheists are evil” and “Our daughter is a good person and mother.” Education and awareness are also important. Affective attitudes more strongly influence current attitudes, but intellectually chosen changes of attitude (central) are more robust and long-lasting than emotionally-driven changes (peripheral) (Weiten, 2007).

This does not mean that addressing the affective component of attitudes is unimportant. To the contrary, a high level of perceived warmth of a person or group increases the likelihood that others will help and protect them and decreases how likely others are to actively hurt them (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). Because atheists are often thought of as cold and impersonal, this is an opportunity for change. One blogger I know labeled himself as the “Friendly Atheist.” The title of his blog alone give some visiting believers a pause to consider how they treat him. Nel Noddings (2008) cites author E. O. Wilson as another example of how nonbelievers can project warmth. “It is clear that Wilson shares with Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens a skepticism toward religious belief. But he wants to communicate and to solicit cooperation on a project of vital interest to humanity” (p.373). By becoming more accessible and approachable, atheists become more sympathetic characters.

In 1987, then-Vice President Bush said to a reporter, “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God” (O’Hair, unknown, ¶2; Sherman, 2007). At this year’s national prayer breakfast, President Obama twice mentioned the existence of non-believing citizens and acknowledged their right to abstain from religion (‘Godless,’ 2009). However one describes those for whom faith is not a part of their lives — agnostic, atheist, secularist, nontheist, freethinker, humanist, or any number of other monikers —society is beginning to change so that prejudice toward them is less acceptable. I hold out for the time we can honestly say we live in a post-theological (Niose, 2008) world.

References

Allen, M. (2007). “Romney: Freedom requires religion.” Politico, December 7, 2007. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7238.html

Bates, S. (2004). “Godless communism” and its legacies. Society, March/April 2004. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 92, No. 4, 631-648. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

‘Godless watch, continued,’ 2009. Democracy in America blog. The Economist. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/02/
godless_watch_continued.cfm

Hennenberger, M. (2009). Obama’s nonbeliever nod unsettles some. AOL News. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-during/316339

Jones, J. (2007). Some Americans reluctant to vote for Mormon, 72-year-old presidential candidates. Gallup News Service. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/
Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx

Niose, D. (2008). The post-theological umbrella. Humanist, January-February 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

Noddings, N. (2008). The new outspoken atheism and education. Harvard Educational Review; Summer 2008; 78, 2; Research Library p. 369. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from ProQuest Online.

Obama, B. H. (2009). Inaugural address. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/
2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

O’Hair, M. (unknown). The history of the issue. Positive Atheism. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Pinel, E.C., Long, A.E., Landau, M.J., Alexander, K., Pyszczynski, T. (2006). Seeing I to I: A pathway to interpersonal connectedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006, Vol.90, No. 2, 243-257. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

‘Religious belief quotes’ (2006). Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://thinkexist.com/
quotes/with/keyword/religious_belief/

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical Thinking in Psychology: Separating Sense from Nonsense (Second Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth , Cengage Learning.

Sherman, R. (2007). Documents at Bush presidential library prove VP Bush questioned citizenship and patriotism of atheists. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.robsherman.com/
advocacy/060401a.htm

Silverman, D. (2009). Top ten atheist myths. American Atheists. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.atheists.org/Top_Ten_Atheist_Myths

Weiten, W. (2008) Psychology: Themes and variations. Briefer version. (7th ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson Higher Education.

U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (2008). The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

This post is tagged