Outgroup Attitudes as a Function of East Asian Religiousness: Marked by High or Low Prejudice?

Research on religion and prejudice has mostly been limited to Western Christian participants and beliefs. Evidence, overall, favors the idea of a religion-prejudice link. Does this also hold for East Asian religions, usually perceived as tolerant, and cultures, characterized by holistic thinking and tolerance of contradictions? We review here four recent studies and provide meta-analytic estimation of the East Asian interreligious prejudice. East Asian religiosity was associated with low explicit prejudice against religious outgroups in general (Study 1; adults from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan) and three specific religious outgroups, i.e. Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but not atheists (Study 2; Taiwanese students), and low implicit prejudice against ethnic (Africans) and religious (Muslims) outgroups (Study 3; Taiwanese students). The mean effect size of the East Asian religious (low) prejudice was r = -.21. Moreover, Westerners from a Christian background primed with Buddhist pictures showed higher prosociality and, those valuing universalism, lower ethnic prejudice compared to the control, no pictures, condition (Study 4). Thus, the general idea that religion promotes prejudice lacks cross-cultural sensitivity: East Asian religion seems to be followed by low prejudice with regard to many, though not all, kinds of outgroups

Religiosity and the motivation for social affiliation

Although universal, the motivation to affiliate can vary as a function of individual differences and of the characteristics of the target. Three studies explored the extent to which religious beliefs and identity are related to social affiliation motivation. Because most religions advocate affiliation and provide opportunities for frequent experiences of affiliation, we reasoned that religious people might show greater affiliation motivation in everyday attitudes and behaviors. We found that religiosity was positively related to implicit and behavioral measures of general social affiliation (Studies 1 and 2). However, manipulating the identity of the affiliation target revealed that when affiliating might not lead to positive outcomes, the relation between religiosity and social affiliation disappeared (but did not reverse). In Studies 2 and 3, when the target of the affiliation was explicitly identified as a member of a threatening out-group (atheist), religiosity did not predict affiliation behaviors. We discuss the mechanisms by which religiosity motivates and constrains social affiliation and the potential implications for social influence and intergroup processes

Being religious implies being different in humour: Evidence from self- and peer-ratings

Previous research indicated negative associations between religiosity and humour creation and appreciation. The present studies on 175 students (study 1) and 196 adults from married couples (study 2) investigated the links between religiosity and spirituality and the use of specific humour styles (assessed on the basis of Martin et al. (2003) Humor Styles Questionnaire and Craik et al. (1996) Humorous Behavior Q-Sort Deck). In study 1 (self-reports), men's spirituality and religiosity were found to be negatively related respectively to the use of hostile and social humour. In study 2 (self- and/or spouse-ratings), there was weak but meaningful evidence that both religious men and women did not tend to use hostile and earthy humour nor, to some extent, social humour. Religious men tended to use self-defeating humour, a finding partially due to their high insecurity in attachment. Moreover, religiosity and/or spirituality was found to be related to between-spouse similarity in many humour styles. The discussion points out the willingness of religious people to share similar values and ways of enjoyment with their partners as well as the fact that the ‘discomfort’ of religion with humour seems to encompass a large number of humour styles

L’orgoglio, l’umiltà e le loro vicissitudini: Un approccio psicologico [Pride, humility, and their vicissitudes: A psychological approach]

In the ascetic literature, pride and humility are considered as the mother of all vices and virtues, respectively. Moreover, working on virtues, including humility, may feed pride. The present work introduces in the debate recent research in moral and personality psychology that has investigated narcissism, self-esteem, modesty, and humility. The paper has three objectives. First, to examine the pertinence of the ascetic literature (especially John Climacus) when considering the multiple dimensions of pride and humility: relation to self, others, and God. Second, to examine whether the religious valorization of humility does translate into real modesty and humility in believers’ attitudes and behavior. Third, to propose clues that allow to consider with serenity the spiritual fight against pride in a way to avoid vicissitudes that are inherent to this fight, i.e. covert narcissism, de-responsibility, excessive guilt, false humility, and compensatory egoistic altruism

Cultural and cross-cultural psychology of religion

Review of theory and research on cross-cultural psychology of religion

Fundamentalism: at the heart or at the margins of religion? Festival della Psicologia

Is fundamentalism at the heart of the very nature of religious beliefs and practices, or is it at the margins of religious faith and devotion, and may even oppose them? Does religion “cause” intergroup conflict and violence or is it simply used or exploited for non-religious motives and goals? Are fundamentalists the same across religions and cultures, or has each major religion its own style of fundamentalism? What kind of underlying factors are at the heart of the fundamentalist personality: cognitive, emotional, social, or moral? Finally, to what extent religious fundamentalism is similar or differs from other kinds of radicalisms (e.g., ideological, political, and moral ones)? This talk will address these questions and will offer empirical psychological evidence coming from various kinds of studies (surveys, international data, lab experiments) offering initial answers to the above questions

Is religion not prosocial at all? Comment on Galen (2012)

Galen (2012), critically reviewing recent research on religion and prosociality, concludes that the religious prosociality hypothesis is a (congruence) fallacy. The observed effects are not real: They only reflect stereotypes and ingroup favoritism, are due to secular psychological effects, are inconsistent, and confound (e.g., by ignoring curvilinear relationships) those low in religiosity with nonbelievers. In this commentary, a distinction is first made between the already known limitations on the extent, context, and quality of the religion–prosociality link and the novel, more radical argument of Galen denying the validity and the plausibility of such a link. Second, careful examination of relevant studies shows that religious prosociality is not reduced to social desirability in self-reports, is confirmed through ratings by peers who are blind with regard to the religious status of the target, and is expressed through real prosocial behavior in controlled experiments and life decisions with long-term effects. This behavior cannot be reduced to ingroup favoritism. Finally, Galen’s opposition between religious versus “secular” psychological effects is criticized as psychologically problematic, and his insistence for examination of curvilinear relationships is relativized on the basis of research confirming the linear relationship. Alternative research questions for understanding prosociality of atheists are proposed