Relationship Between Religiosity And Prejudice Psychology Essay

Relationship Between Religiosity And Prejudice psychological science EssayThe literature on the family amidst ghostlikeism and injury has shown inconsistent bringings. We argue that it is necessary to distinguish among different types of religionism and that the consanguinity with damage is meddled by different determine. Results of both studies conducted in Italy showed that set pietism and introjected religiosity predict different levels of outrage towards Muslim immigrants. Moreover, the blackball tellingship in the midst of determine religiosity and preconceived idea was mediated by pro kind set, whereas valuing conformism mediated the appointed relationship between introjected religiosity and detriment. In sum, results showed that it is possible to make better understand the relationship between religiosity and prepossess by disentangling the different shipway of macrocosm sacred.Keywords ghostly identity, apparitional incorporation, deter mine, damageReligiosity and PrejudiceDifferent Patterns for dickens Types of Religious InternalizationAre ghostlike tidy sum much blanket(a)? The question or so the relationship between religiosity and preconceived notion endlessly elicited opposite answers. From one and only(a) side, one would expect that spiritual people ar more than accepting of minority out-groups, basing on the idea that virtually religions teach love for others (see Hunsberger Jackson, 2005). From the other side, not all people describing themselves as religious have verifying out-group attitudes on the contrary, this relationship often goes in the opposite direction, with more religious people organism more disadvantage (see the review by Batson, Schoenrade, Ventis, 1993).It is now evident that, in order to tone-beginning these conflicting answers, it is necessary to differentiate between the different slipway of be religious (see also Leak Finken, 2011), and to investigate which people, among religious people, atomic number 18 more tolerant and which argon not. The most common distinction is between an inwrought and an extrinsic religious orientation (Allport and Ross, 1967) according to these distinction, intrinsic religiosity is machine-accessible with low prejudice whereas extrinsic religiosity is related to to relatively game levels of prejudice. However, empirical look for investigating the link between religiosity and prejudice has not clearly supported these connections and, therefore, this distinction does not seem to bearing a clear cause of the inconsistent link between religiosity and prejudice (Hunsberger Jackson, 2005).Another attempt to analyze the relationship between religiosity and prejudice has been to identify intervening vari suitables. Indeed, scholars identified other constructs than cornerstone twine the positive or negative resultants of religiosity on prejudice. enquiry showed that differences in prejudice can be explained by considering the mediating mathematical function of, for example, political ideology and right-wing authoritarianism (e.g., Rowatt et al., 2009), religious fundamentalism (e.g., Altemeyer Hunsberger, 1992), and sense of meaning (Hunsberger Jackson, 2005).The aim of the salute interrogation is to make a further contri plainlyion to the understanding of the relationship between religiosity and prejudice, by analyzing two forms of religious internalization and by examining value warrantee as a mediating variable. In particular, we reduce on the distinction between what is called indentified correct religiosity and introjected regulated religiosity (Ryan, Rigby, King, 1993). In gibeition, we consider the role of the endorsement of prosocial values and compliancy values as mediators in the relationship between religiosity and prejudice. The findings of two studies that testify the attitude towards Muslim immigrants of untested adults in Italy volition be devoteed.Religious Identification and IntrojectionResearch on religiosity and prejudice has apply Allport and Ross (1967) distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation (see Batson, Schoenrade, Ventis, 1993). Recently, most scholars questioned the usefulness of this distinction (e.g., Cohen, Hall, Koenig, Meador, 2005 Flere Lavric, 2007) and revised it (Neyrinck, Lens, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, 2010) by using theories of human motivation such as self-determination possible action (Deci Ryan, 1985 Ryan Deci, 2000).An alternative distinction has been offered by research in the field of self-determination theory, which proposed a specific formulation of the different ways in which religious values are endorsed and religious behavior regulated. Beliefs can be endorsed in a superficial and qualified way depending on circumstances and social coerces (heteronomy), or in a personal and independent way (autonomy) (Ryan Deci, 2000). Within this framework, two types of religiosity em erged that motley in their relative autonomy introjected regularisation and identified regulation (Ryan, Rigby and King, 1993). The former represents religious beliefs and behaviors that are predominantly establish on social pressures and the approval of others. The latter represents adoption of beliefs as personal convictions and the enactment of religious behaviors that are personally chosen and valued (Ryan et al., 1993).Introjected and identified internalization of religion appear to be other than associated to psychological outcomes with the latter having positive and the former negative effects on mental health, psychological adjustment, and self-pride (Ryan et al., 1993). Whereas the psychological implications of both types of religiosity have been examined, little is known about their social implications. In particular, the relation between types of religious internalization and prejudice has not been investigated. In this study we propose that identified internalization may be related to lower prejudice towards Muslim immigrants, which in the Italian context is a significant and generally negatively evaluated minority out-group (Strabac Listhaug, 2008).In fact, undivideds who are deeply identified with their religion can be pass judgment to privately endorse religious principles of prosociality and tolerance, if they smell out that their religion values prosociality and tolerance. Accordingly, they should discover relatively positive out-group attitudes. In contrast, individuals who mainly introject their religiosity do not privately endorse such values but kinda seek approval from significant and generalized others, as they feel that to be religious is to be like the majority of people. In view of the wide-spread negative attitudes towards Muslim immigrants in Italy they, therefore, can be expected to be more prejudiced towards Muslim immigrants. Thus, our prediction is that identified religious people will show significant lower levels of prejudice towards Muslim immigrants than introjected religious people.Religiosity and ValuesResearch on religiosity and prejudice has essay to shed light on the reasons why religious people are less or more prejudiced by examining mediating variables (e.g., Rowatt et al., 2009). In the present paper, we consider values as possible mediators between religiosity and prejudice. Thus, we fag that the different values associated with the different ways of being religious can influence the relationship between religiosity and prejudice.Research investigating the relationship between religiosity and values can be broadly split into two types. A first group of studies focuses on the relationship between religiosity and conformism. For example, a meta-analysis by Saroglou, Delpierre and Dernelle (2003), including 21 samples from15 different countries, examined the link between religiosity and Schwartzs (1992) homunculus of human values. The analysis showed that religiosity is mainly asso ciated with valuing the sustenance and adoption of social and cultural rules and conventions. A second group of studies highlights the standoff between religiosity and prosocial values. For example, in his review Regnerus (2003) found that religious adolescents are more likely to be involved in prosocial behaviours than non religious peers. Furthermore, robust and Carlo (2005) showed that prosocial values partially mediate the relationship between religiosity and prosocial behaviors.These studies predict that religiosity is associated with valuing conformity as well as prosociality and these two sets of values are likely to play a different role in intergroup attitudes. In general, the prosocial value of concern for the welfare of others tends to result to accepting and positive behavior (Hardy Carlo, 2005), whereas valuing conformity and respect for tradition tends to lead to discrimination of non-traditional out-groups, including immigrant groups in Italy (Sniderman, Peri, de Figueiredo, Piazza, 2002). We expected conformity values to be most strongly machine-accessible with introjected religiosity because this type of religious belief is predominantly based on approval of others. In contrast, prosocial values were expected to be attached with identified religiosity. In turn, the conformity and prosocial values were expected to be individually associated with prejudice. Thus, the second prediction of the current research is that higher(prenominal) identified religiosity is associated with lower levels of prejudice because of the endorsement of prosocial values, whereas higher introjected religiosity is associated with higher levels of prejudice because of the endorsement of conformity values.The Present StudyIn the present study, we tested the relationship between religious internalization and anti-Muslim prejudice, and the potential mediational role of prosocial and conformity values. We predicted two tracksidentified religious people should end orse in a greater way the religious principles of prosociality and tolerance, thus, we expected a path from identified religiosity to less prejudice, via the endorsement of prosocial valuesBecause of the other-based-approval of introjected religiosity and because those who prize conformity will tend to yield to social pressure and have more negative attitudes toward immigrant groups (Sniderman et al., 2002), we expected the endorsement of conformity to mediate the relationship between introjected religiosity and prejudice.MethodParticipants. Participants were 164 Italian young adults, self-identified as Catholics, of age between 17 and 30 (M = 21.68, SD = 3.20), with 64.2 % females.Procedure. Participants were contacted by a member of the research team in schools and religious associations. They were asked to fill in an online questionnaire and participation was voluntary. Participants who completed the questionnaire had the chance to take part in a prize draw. All reactents signed an informed consent form onwards completing the questionnaire.Measures. Respondents completed the questionnaire in Italian. All the measure included were translated into Italian with a back-translation procedure, as recommended by the guidelines of the International Test Commission (Hambleton, 1994).The Christian Religious Internalization Scale (Ryan et al, 1993) was developed for research with a Christian population and measures the reasons why a person engages in religious behavior. in that location are two reliable and validated subscales, Introjected Religiosity and determine Religiosity (response scale 1, not at all true, 7, very true). cardinal example items for the introjected religiosity subscale (five items) are an important reason why I attend church is because one is supposed to go to church, when I turn to God, I most often do it because I would feel guilty if I didnt. Example items for the identified religiosity subscale (six items) are when I turn to God, I most often do it because I find it satisfying to me, an important reason why I attend church is that by going to church I learn new things. In the present sample Cronbachs alpha showed delicious values (introjected religiosity = .70 identified religiosity = .86).Prosocial values were measured with five items adapted from Flanagan, Cusmille, Gill, and Gallay (2007). The scale spark off is the question When you think about your life and your future tense, how important is. Subsequently, participants are asked to respond to five items (5-point scale) to do something in order to build a better society, helping those who are less fortunate, to make a contribution to your coun leaven, etcetera ( = .82)Prejudice towards Muslims. Following Verkuyten and Yildiz (2010) we focused on the acceptance of Muslim immigrants expressing their religious identity in Italy. Using five items, participants were asked to indicate their agreement (7-point scale) with Muslims expressive rights. Two examples are to show and express their religion in humankind life, to wear a headscarf. The strikes were recoded so that a higher score means less acceptance of Muslims rights and, thus, more prejudice ( = .87). union. Following Snidermans et al. (2002) research in Italy, participants were asked to rate their agreement (7-point scale) with four statement about conformity values. Two example items are one should distrust those who act differently from most people rules are there for people to follow, not to try to change ( = .71).Results and treatmentConstructs were modeled as single-indicator observed variables, by calculating the mean score of the scale items. We conducted a series of path analyses with prejudice towards Muslims as the dependent variable, using the software Amos 16.Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among the variables are displayed in Table 1. The mean for identified religiosity is higher than for introjected religiosity (t = 21.22, p. Table 1. Means, St andard Deviations and Correlations.Variables123451. Identification2. Introjection.36**3. Prosocial values.44**.124. Conformity.06.18*-.015. Muslim prejudice-.07-.05-.27**.35**Mean4.672.514.033.083.67SD1.170.94.731.181.60*pWe first tested a model in which introjection, realization, prosocial values and conformity values were independent predictors of prejudice towards Muslims. Fit indices for this model were not acceptable ( (5) = 34.321, p. We then tested a full mediation model, whereby the influence of introjection and identification on anti-Muslim prejudice was carried respectively by the endorsement of prosocial and conformity values. The model showed a good reconcile with the data ( (5) = 2.341, p. .05 NFI= .97 CFI= 1.00 RMSEA= .00, 90% confidence separation .00- .07) and accounted for 20.0 % of variance in prejudice towards Muslims. Significant parameters from this model are shown in Figure 1. We then calculated the verifying effects on the bum of Preacher and Hayes (2008 ) bootstrapping method. on that point was a significant sufferative effect from identified religiosity via prosocial values on anti-Muslim prejudice (the standardized confirming effect was estimated as -.12 this value lies between the estimated 95 % confidence interval, -.03 to -.22). There was also a significant indirect effect from introjected religiosity via conformity to prejudice towards Muslims ( = .06, 95% confidence interval .01 to .12).To further examine our mediational hypotheses we tested an alternative model in which the endorsement of prosocial and conformity values predicted the outcome measure indirectly through identified and introjected religiosity, respectively. The fit indexes for this model were not acceptable ( (6) = 52.763, p. .44**Prosocial valuesIdentification-.28**-.12*Prejudice towards Muslims.36**.06*.36**.18*IntrojectionConformityFigure 1. Results of the path analysis showing the empirical mediation of prosocial values and valuing conformity. Solid li nes represent direct effects and dashed lines represent indirect effects. Numbers are standardized regression weights. **p In sum, the findings fix the prediction of the independent associations of identified and introjected religiosity with prejudice. Besides, they also confirm the mediational hypotheses about the role of values endorsement. In particular, there appeared to be two pathways one from identified religiosity via the endorsement of prosocial values to lower prejudice towards Muslims, and the other from introjected religiosity to valuing conformity to higher prejudice.General DiscussionThe research aimed to test the prediction that different forms of religious internalization are independently associated with prejudice, and that these associations are mediated by the endorsement of different types of values. Thus, we selected a religious sample in order to shed light on the different ways of being religious. Results showed that higher identified religiosity was related to stronger acceptance of Muslims rights (i.e. lower prejudice) and that this was connected to the endorsement of prosocial values. Conformity values which accounted for the indirect relationship between introjected religiosity and prejudice.A first raise finding is that religious identification and religious introjection were independently and in tell ways related to prejudice. They emerged as two dimensions of religiosity that are indirectly associated with prejudice, one with a positive sign and the other one with a negative sign. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such a clear drill emerge. Therefore, this conceptualization of religiosity could be a useful model that is able to overcome some of the problems with Allport and Ross (1967) distinction, that was not systematically and consistently related to prejudice (see Hunsberger Jackson, 2005).A second finding is that, in agreement with research on values and religiosity (Saroglou et al., 2003), we found a relatio nship between religiosity and conformity and with the endorsement of prosocial values. Additionally, we were able to identify which form of religious internalization predicts the association with which set of values. Prosocial values were clearly connected with identified religiosity, whereas valuing conformity was associated with introjected religiosity.A third result that contributes to the literature relates to self-determination theory (Ryan et al., 1993). The findings enrich Ryan et al. (1993) conceptualization because they empirically show that the difference between identified and introjected religiosity not only has consequences for individual well-being but also for value endorsement and thereby for prejudice. In fact, the different ways of being religious are strongly associated to different values and this lead to opposite outcomes.ConclusionIn the present study, we aimed at investigating the relation between different types of religious internalization and different leve ls of prejudice. The study indeed presents some limitations, first because of the correlational nature of data and second because of the typography of the sample. In fact, participants are of young age and all live in Italy, making it difficult to generalize the findings to other countries, maybe where religiosity has a different distribution among the population. Similarly, we need to examine other targets of prejudice (e.g., Jews, homosexuals) forwards reaching general conclusions.Nevertheless, we think that some interesting directions for future research a can be drawn from these findings. A first one refers to the internalization of religion identified internalization turned out to be a form of religiosity that has the potential to encourage prosocial orientations and out-group tolerance. Thus, it would be interesting, for future research, to look at the factors that promote identified religiosity among religious groups and families (e.g., Assor, Cohen-Malayev, Kaplan, Fried man, 2005). A second suggestion is that future research should investigate other determinants of individual differences in religiosity and try to identify the different ways of being religious with their specific consequences (Pargament, 2002) for example, it is possible that not only identified and introjected internalization have effects on prejudice, but also religious practices and participation in religious organizations and groups(e.g., prayer, church attendance, volunteering, etc.).To sum up, our research add to the investigation of religiosity and prejudice by showing that two forms of religious internalization have independent and contrasting associations with prejudice, and that these associations are accounted by the endorsement of different values. This means that religiosity can both promote and hamper positive intergroup relations, depending on the way religion is internalized and the related values that are endorsed. This seems to indicate that more research is neede d about the different ways of being religious and the mediational mechanisms that intervene in the religiosity-prejudice link.