Intrinsic religiosity reduces intergroup hostility under mortality salience

Abstract

Results of three studies indicate that intrinsic religiosity and mortality salience interact to predict intergroup hostility. Study 1, conducted among 200 American Christians and Jews, reveals that under mortality salience, intrinsic (but not extrinsic or quest) religiosity is related to decreased support for aggressive counterterrorism. Study 2, conducted among 148 Muslims in Iran, demonstrates that intrinsic religiosity predicts decreased out-group derogation under mortality salience. Study 3, conducted among 131 Polish Christians, shows that under mortality salience, priming of intrinsic religious concepts decreases support for aggressive counterterrorism. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The terrorist attacks of 9/11 inspired the belief that religion motivates and encourages political violence. In 2006, a Gallup Poll found that 33% of Americans believed that mainstream Islam promotes violence against non-Muslims. In a recent paper, Hogg, Adelman and Blagg (2010) explained why, when, and how religious zeal can encourage political violence. They argue that a religion can be understood as a social group and that individual religiosity reflects the extent to which people identify with the religious group and follow its norms. Religions provide consolation and authoritative answers to most important existential questions. This feature makes them appealing in times of uncertainty and mortality threat. At the same time, because of their fundamental claims, religious beliefs inspire unquestioning obedience and ideological zeal that can blind people to morally questionable aspects of their actions (Hogg et al., 2010).Yet, religiosity is not inevitably related to intergroup hostility. For example, the 2009 Gallup Poll confirms that people who practice their (non-Muslim) religions report the lowest prejudice against Muslims and Islam (Gallup Inc, 2009). Intrinsic religious commitment is related to decreased prejudice (e.g., Hall, Matz, & Wood, 2010), and frequent meditative, personal prayer reduces hostility (e.g., Butler, Stout, & Gardner, 2002). In addition, religions are associated with norms of benevolence and compassion that mitigate intergroup hostility among religious fundamentalists under mortality salience .In three studies, we explore the idea that distinguishing between different ways of being religious allows us to more adequately understand the role of individual religiosity in intergroup context under mortality threat. We propose that mortality salience strengthens the relationship between intrinsic religious commitment and decreased intergroup hostility. We test this prediction in the context of what is often referred to as the "conflict between the Muslim and the Western world" (e.g., Pyszczynski et al., 2006). Before we outline our hypotheses in more detail, we will discuss the findings regarding intergroup hostility under mortality threat and the relationships between individual religious orientations and intergroup negativity. EXISTENTIAL THREAT AND INTERGROUP HOSTILITYMortality salie...

Religious magnanimity: Reminding people of their religious belief system reduces hostility after threat.

“…This is not to say that pre-existing religiosity does not matter. Indeed, as demonstrated in past research showing that intrinsic religiosity moderates the effects of mortality salience threats (Golec de Zavala et al, 2012;Jonas & Fischer, 2006), levels of pre-existing religiosity likely influence whether people spontaneously adhere to their religious beliefs in threatening cir cumstances when these beliefs have not been experimentally primed.…”

“…Some forms of religiosity are associated with prejudice toward various outgroups (Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005;Rowatt et al, 2006), a relation also observed in priming studies (Johnson, Rowatt, & LaBouff, 2010;LaBouff, Rowatt, Johnson, & Finkle, 2012). Several surveys with Palestin ians have revealed that frequency of Mosque attendance (but not frequency of prayer) predicts support for suicide attacks (Ginges et al, 2009). Further, implicitly primed religious concepts increase vengeful behavior if revenge is recommended by an authority figure (Saroglou et al, 2009), and priming vengeful religious teachings increases aggression toward a fellow participant (Bush man et al, 2007).…”

“…We examined whether the religious belief system prime would decrease the amount of worldview defense exhibited by participants under threat. In past research, worldview defense following mortality salience was mitigated by intrinsic religiosity-an internalized form of religious belief where faith is an end in itself (Jonas & Fischer, 2006, Study 2; see also Norenzayan et al, 2009). In other research, worldview defense following mortality salience was mitigated by salience of highest personal values (Schmeichel & Martens, 2005).…”

“…As such, it allowed us to assess whether participants' personal religious beliefs were spontaneously mag nanimous. Further, unlike God primes, which activate images of God as an omnipotent, omniscient moral agent (e.g., Preston & Ritter, 2010;Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007), or religious group primes, which activate ingroup protection motives (e.g., Ginges, Hansen, & Norenzayan, 2009;Preston & Ritter, 2010), we ex pected a religious belief system prime to activate core ideals associated with participants' religious beliefs. This minimal prim ing procedure thus allowed us to tap the content of participants' pre-existing religious beliefs to test our hypothesis that religious belief salience tends to cause less hostile reactions to threat.…”

“…The Golden Rule teaches the value of magnanimity toward everyone. When reminded of their religious beliefs, threatened people who hold the Golden Rule as a core religious ideal might extend religious magnanimity to everyone-even those who violate other religious values (for some support for this prediction, see Golec de Zavala et al, 2012;Norenzayan et al, 2009). In light of past research showing an association between religion and hostility toward various out groups, this is an important question for future research.…”