Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Prejudices
- Creators: Cohen, Adam B.
Description
Anti-atheist prejudice is cross-culturally prevalent and marked by intuitive distrust. However, recent research suggests that, when social perceivers know additional relevant information about others (i.e., their reproductive strategies), this information overrides religious information and nonreligious targets are trusted as much as religious targets. That is, perceivers seem to use religious information as a cue to a specific set of behavioral traits, but prioritize direct information about these traits when available. Here, I use this framework to explore the possibility that atheists are viewed positively in certain circumstances. First, atheists might be viewed positively for certain purposes because of their perceived reproductive strategies, even while being trusted less. Second, atheists who are family-oriented do not sacrifice trust, but may still be viewed positively for other traits (i.e., open-mindedness, scientific thinking). Third, given the constraints religion often imposes on behavior, atheists might be trusted more in situations where these constraints interfere with religious people’s inclination to cooperate. I tested these hypotheses using fictitious social media profiles to examine social perception. The study had a 3 (Target Religion: Religious, Nonreligious, or Atheist) × 3 (Target Reproductive Strategy: No Information, Committed, Uncommitted) experimental design (N = 550). Contrary to my predictions, participants did not rate atheists and nonreligious targets as “fast” compared to religious targets. Consistent with predictions, however, atheists and nonreligious individuals were rated significantly higher on perceived open-mindedness and scientific thinking. Finally, atheist and nonreligious targets were trusted more in two of the three trust domains: trust with scientific findings that contradict their worldview and trust with a secret about a friend’s abortion. Further analyses compared patterns of responding for religious and nonreligious individuals, finding evidence for ingroup bias in most perceptions, but not all. Results suggest that perceptions of atheists are complex, but that atheists may, at least sometimes, be viewed favorably. Finally, these results point to the importance of reproductive strategy as a dimension of social perception, as this variable had a clear effect, independent of target religion, on the hypothesized perceptions.
ContributorsMoon, Jordan W (Author) / Cohen, Adam B. (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Existing work suggests that intergroup negativity is caused by dissimilarities of values between groups. In contrast, I propose that incompatible values--regardless of whether they are similar or dissimilar--cause intergroup negativities. Because values act as cues to tangible goals and interests, groups' values suggest desired outcomes that may conflict with our own (i.e., incompatible values). The current study conceptually and empirically disentangles value-dissimilarity and value-incompatibility, which were confounded in previous research. Results indicated that intergroup negativities were strongly predicted by value-incompatibility, and only weakly and inconsistently predicted by value-dissimilarity. I further predicted that groups' values cue specific threats and opportunities to perceivers and that, in reaction to these inferred affordances, people will experience threat-relevant, specific emotional reactions (e.g., anger, disgust); however, results did not support this prediction. I also predicted that, because the inferred threats that groups pose to one another are not always symmetric, the negativities between groups may sometimes be asymmetric (i.e., Group A feels negatively toward Group B, but Group B feels neutral or positively toward Group A). This prediction received strong support. In sum, reframing our understanding of values as cues to conflicts-of-interest between groups provides principles for understanding intergroup prejudices in more nuanced ways.
ContributorsVarley Lee, Allison (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Siroky, David (Committee member) / Aktipis, C Athena (Committee member) / Cohen, Adam B. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
The present study tested the hypothesis that women dress modestly to signal to other women that they pose no mate poaching threat and are sexually restricted, and that this is especially true for religious women. Participants were 392 Muslim women living in the United States. They read two passages describing fictional situations in which they met with a potential female friend and then indicated what kind of outfit they would wear in both situations. In one situation, the participant obtained a reputation for promiscuity; in the other situation, reputation was not mentioned. I predicted that participants would choose more modest outfits for the promiscuous reputation passage, because if women dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness, then they should dress more modestly around women with whom they have a reputation for promiscuity—to counteract such a reputation, women may wish to send a strong signal that they are not promiscuous. The hypothesis was partially supported: Less religious women chose more modest outfits for the promiscuous reputation situation than they did for the no reputation situation. This suggests that some women dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness to other women, but that this is especially true for women who are less religious, not more. More religious women dress more modestly than less religious women, but they may not dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness. Two important goals for this area of research are to determine the proximate reasons that more religious women dress modestly and to investigate modest dress among non-Muslim religious women.
ContributorsNorthover, Stefanie Blair (Author) / Cohen, Adam B. (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Lieberman, Debra (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020