Prejudice and discrimination have a long-storied history throughout the world. It is these two psycho-sociological concepts that influence the presence of in and out groups throughout our society. Prejudice, as defined as a series of attitudes directed at a specific group or the individuals that make up a group, still remains a significant problem in both established and emerging societies (PSU, 2017). Pennsylvania State University (2017) notes that prejudice often highlights negative stereotypes of a group or individuals. Historically, examples of prejudice have been noted throughout a series of societal changes such as immigration and the civil rights campaign. We are often made aware of the common sources of prejudice; however, Joanna Burch-Brown and William Baker recently uncovered a community that often escapes the blame as a source of prejudiced behavior.
Burch-Brown and Baker recently explored the connection between religion and prejudiced behavior. Prior to performing their research, Burch-Brown and Baker (2016, p. 784) hypothesized that religion has the ability to promote and or reduce prejudicial behavior among followers. Their work introduces social identity theory as the two explore how religion is capable of enabling prejudice. As Burch-Brown and Baker (2016, p. 786) introduce the historical relationship between religion and prejudice, they cite several meta-analyses highlighting a strong correlation between religious affiliation and prejudiced attitudes. Groups such as gays, the nonreligious or members of other religious groups are labeled (Burch-Brown & Baker, 2016, p. 786).
As the conversation shifts to causation of prejudice, the researchers (Burch-Brown & Baker, 2016, p. 788) note the rise of intolerance as it relates to prejudice and discrimination; however, they also reinforce the idea that religions have become a source of social acceptance for individuals. The end result of this phenomenon is an increase in racial and religious intolerance (Burch-Brown & Baker, 2016, p. 788). While religious groups may present a social outlet for individuals to engage in prejudiced behavior, Burch-Brown and Baker alert readers to other critical psychological frameworks uncovered throughout their study. Interestingly, the concept of priming is well documented throughout the Burch-Brown and Baker research. Priming, which relates to the response of a familiar stimuli, has a distinct relationship with religion (APA, 2014). Burch-Brown and Baker (2016, p. 788) state that, “Words like ‘Bible,’ ‘Jesus, ‘and prayer’ are conceptually associated with conservative social values for many people in the US.” Through priming, individuals may be exposed to prejudiced and discriminatory attitudes.
However, one of the most fascinating aspects of the research relates to the concept of social identity theory. Social identity theory indicates that individuals can be influenced by either their personal or social identity (PSU, 2017). Burch-Brown and Baker argue that social identity theory has the capability of either reinforcing or removing prejudicial behavior and attitudes. Regarding the reduction of prejudice, the research points to specific examples such as the civil rights movement, in which religion played a pivotal role in supporting the cause of civil rights activists (Burch-Brown & Baker, 2011, p. 790). These experiences were commonly associated with positive social aspects of religious groups. Alternatively, religious groups and members may fall victim to religious identity threat, which is Burch-Brown & Baker (2011, p. 790) label as a threat to an entire religion or religious community. Religious threat has the capability to dramatically impact the social identity of faithful religious individuals thus creating negative or prejudiced attitudes towards outgroup members.
Unfortunately, the concept of social identity theory indicates that religious groups can both positively and negatively impact the attitudes of their followers. When groups represent progress and pride, the social identity of individuals may match that of the overall group. However, when challenged, religious groups have provided unfortunate examples of hatred, bigotry and prejudice. The personal and social identity of individuals is an extremely important concept as it relates to prejudice enablement and or reduction. Lastly, the outcome of social identity theory and religion reminds us that we must always be cautious of how we label religious groups. Negative social influences within religion are not a new phenomenon in modern society; while these forces are projected to continue well into the future, they should not take away from the positive social progress that many groups have made.
References
American Psychological Association. (2014). Lexical Decision Tasks, Semantic Priming, and Reading. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/peeps/issue-33.aspx
Burch-Brown, J. & Baker, W. (2016). Religion and Reducing Prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Vol 19, Issue 6, pp. 784-807
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2017). Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. PSYCH 424. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915547
Hi,
Interesting post!
I would have never thought about considering religion as form of prejudice. Namely, because when I think of religion my view of faith aligns with acceptance. However, that may not be the case in all religions. Namely, it is possible for an individual to have a negative attitude towards members of another faith who beliefs don’t necessarily align with their religion. The person could then be influenced by situational factors and others who they socially identify with based on religion. As a result, it is possible for a leader/preacher to encourage hatred or bigotry and his flock heeds to his words and follows it. This is where In-grouping versus out-grouping could play a role, creating a bigger division amongst religions. Chiefly, the believers feel a connection to their group, while making the out-groups rivals. Those who are not similar in faith may not necessarily accept another group who shares a dissimilar faith.
Religion could potentially offer and opportunity to remove prejudice by incorporating diversity. Allport contact hypothesis supports my statement. He believes through contact and sharing a common goal it would reduce prejudice and discrimination. With attention too, the common goal could be the religion. A faith that accepts all races, ethnicity, creeds and genders that teaches acceptance. So although diversity can cause “negative effect such as prejudice, discrimination and conflict,” it can also enhance togetherness if steps such as Allport are utilized.
References
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412976381
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2017). Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. PSYCH 424. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915547
I enjoyed reading your blog on religious prejudice enablement and reduction. In reading your post, I can certainly attest to religious social acceptance as an enabler of prejudice. I have a family member who is heavily involved in her church and their nontolerant beliefs, to the point that many no longer have contact with her. My aunt’s religion does not accept homosexuality, gay marriage, nor any type of nontraditional sexual orientation. I also have a niece who is gay and was ostracized by my aunt at family gatherings. My aunt would bring up the bible, Jesus, God, and recite scripture, which as you stated are all “priming” words exposing her “prejudice and discriminatory attitudes.” My aunt’s social identity is highly reinforced by her religious affiliation which unfortunately, encourages prejudice.
In reading your post, the first church that came to my mind was Westboro Baptist Church. This religious group has been known to protest military funerals, denounce LGBT, and any other nonconforming religions. However, I know many friends, neighbors, and acquaintances who are Baptist and they certainly do not subscribe to the same types of prejudices as members of Westboro Baptist Church. Unfortunately, the usage of Baptist may cause a stereotype for other Baptist churches, who do not hold the negative prejudices that this particular group holds.
The Social Identity Theory does have to potential to impact both the personal and social identity of an individual. However, in these two situations I have mentioned, it appears the social influence of the groups identity prevailed. However, I am sure their personal identity is accepting of these negative attitudes and behaviors, otherwise there would be a conflict between the two identities.
This is a very interesting topic. I believe I mentioned religion as a category to which many people belong, one more label of definition and identity. However, I certainly did not put so much thought into it. Your post reminds me of all the prejudice I was exposed to growing up in relation to religion. I remember hearing a lot a saying that describes people that go a lot to church but then act in ways that do not really go accordingly. “People use the church as dish detergent” I heard many times. This means that people go to church just clean their conscience. It is true that in the name of religion, some horrible things have been done, many years ago like the Catholic church. This also makes me think of the prejudice and racism involving people from other countries mainly because of their religion beliefs.
In terms of social identity theory, I can think of how a person behaves in different situations. A person’s identity, according to social identity theory is made up of a personal identity and a social identity (Lesson 6, PSYCH 424). According to the theory, individuals can behave in different ways because their personal identity or social identity will determine so in specific situations, like personal or social situations (Lesson 6, PSYCH 424). This again makes me think about that saying I heard many times growing up. In the social environment, specially in the church, individual’s social identity and in this case their religious identity determine their behavior. Then, at other moments, when they are by themselves, their personal identities may determine their behavior in a way that is not similar to the behavior displayed at church. I mean, social identity theory relates to this common saying I heard growing up. I think it makes sense, that some people have different personal and social identities. We all do to some extent. That combination is what makes us different and what defines us as human beings.
I think religion an influence both the followers and the outsiders in many ways. This can be in a positive or negative way. One thing you are right is we definitely need to be careful of how we label religious groups and this is an advice that applies to many aspects of life, and many groups and categories. We can challenge ourselves out of conform into understanding and acceptance, we are supposed to, we must.
References:
Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. PSYCH 424. Penn State World Campus.
In reading your post, I am reminded of an encounter I had with the Catholic Church. Ironically, I was working on a class project for one of my Penn State World Campus classes. In this class, I had to study a subculture throughout the semester in an ethnographic way. Additionally, we would build off of our previous research by adding new elements as we went through the lessons. At the beginning of the semester, each student had to select a subculture and solicit their approval before beginning any observation or interaction. I recall meeting with one of the Pastors to discuss the process and gain their approval. Initially, meeting started out smoothly and productive. At one point I was asked if I was a practicing Catholic, which I replied no. Then the Pastor asked if I was one of three other denominations, which I again replied no. He then asked what I my faith was and I replied, “agnostic.” It was at that moment the conversation completely changed. I was hurried out of the Pastor’s office and told how the being agnostic is a bad thing and I should not say that in a church. I was rather stunned by the situation since I was not there to defame the church in away way. We talked it through and I had to make it clear my efforts were purely research oriented and not a means to distort the image of the church. Therefore, back to your example, I can see how there could be moments when challenges to religion could result in various responses. I agree with you, under the framework of the Social Identity Theory, there is the potential to create an us versus them situation that is counterproductive (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2015, p.341). As mention by Schneider et al. (2005), using methods such as the contact hypothesis to bring people close (p. 343). Moreover, through coalition building people can interact through high acquaintance potential in order to interaction at high levels, which would result in positive social interactions to better understand and facilitate the dialog between groups (Schneider et al., 2005, p 344).
Great job on your post!
Brandon
References
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.