Religious Fundamentalism as a Predictor of Prejudice: A Two‐Component Model

Abstract

The present study aims to determine whether the empirical relationship between religious fundamentalism and prejudice can be accounted for in terms of the mutually opposing effects of Christian orthodoxy and rightwing authoritarianism using multiple regression. Three separate samples (total n = 320) completed measures of religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, Christian orthodoxy, ethnic prejudice, and homosexual prejudice. Consistent with previous research, fundamentalism (1) was essentially unrelated to ethnic prejudice when considered alone; (2) was positively related to ethnic prejudice when orthodoxy was statistically controlled; and (3) was negatively related to ethnic prejudice when authoritarianism was statistically controlled. Finally, when both authoritarianism and orthodoxy were controlled simultaneously, fundamentalism was again unrelated to prejudice, whereas orthodoxy was negatively related and authoritarianism positively related. In contrast, fundamentalism was a significant positive predictor of prejudice against gays and lesbians irrespective of whether authoritarianism and/or orthodoxy were statistically controlled.Religion is an extremely complex and multifaceted phenomenon, as reflected by the existence of the enormous number of psychometric scales that have been developed over the years to measure various aspects of it (Hill and Hood 2000). Because the various dimensions or aspects of religiousness tend to be intercorrelated or confounded with one another, it is notoriously difficult to tease apart the effects of different dimensions in assessing the empirical relationships between religiosity and other variables. An unfortunate consequence of this is that the research literature contains numerous examples of inconsistent and contradictory results with respect to such relationships.One prominent example of this problem in the research literature concerns the relationship between religious belief and prejudice. This is a particularly vexing issue because it has long been observed that different aspects of religiousness may relate to prejudice not only to varying degrees, but in opposite directions. In an oft-quoted passage, Allport (1954:444) summarized the problem by observing:The role of religion is paradoxical. It makes prejudice and it unmakes prejudice. While the creeds of the great religions are universalistic, all stressing brotherhood, the practice of these creeds is frequently divisive and brutal. The sublimity of religious ideals is offset by the horrors of persecution in the name of these same ideals. . . . Churchgoers are more prejudiced than the average; they are also less prejudiced than the average. The solution at which Allport eventually arrived in attempting to resolve this paradox concerned variation in the motivations behind people's religious beliefs. Thus, the most influential Brian Laythe is a doctoral student in the

Social work students' attitudes towards gay men and lesbians in Namibia: Results from an exploratory study

“…Additionally, students who reported more frequent religious participation had higher scores (more negative attitudes) on the ATLG instruments, which has been a consistent finding in other research on homophobia worldwide (Laythe et al 2002;Wilkinson 2004;Herek 1984;and Hunsberger 1996). Interestingly, only those who attended daily religious services were significantly more negative, while those who attend weekly/monthly/rarely demonstrated attitudes that did not differ.…”

Love Thy Neighbor? Relationships between Religion and Racial Intolerance in Europe

“…It is important to distinguish non-fundamentalist from fundamentalist believing, as fundamentalism is a key predictor of intolerance toward religious, ethnic, and cultural outgroups (Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992;Eisinga, Konig, and Scheepers 1995;Glock and Stark 1966;Laythe et al 2002). Fundamentalism is defined here as an exclusive truth-claim of one religion over others, expressed by the statement "there is only one true religion."…”

Religious Ambivalence: Suppression of Pro-Social Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers by Right-Wing Authoritarianism

“…Religion is certainly linked to authoritarianism, as well as to prejudice (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992;Hunsberger, Owusu & Duck, 1999;Laythe, Finkel, Bringle & Kirkpatrick, 2002;Laythe, Finkel & Kirkpatrick, 2001;Rowatt & Franklin, 2004;Wylie & Forest, 1992). Moulian (1979), for example, discussed the use of religion by authoritarian regimes to rally followers and to justify their actions, and RWA (but not SDO) has been shown to predict support for religious education in public school curriculums .…”