Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

The Limits of Antiatheist Prejudice

Social Perception of Those Who Harm Animals

Published Online:May 03, 2023https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000516

Abstract

Abstract: People tend to perceive atheists as being immoral. We tested whether this perception also applies to moral transgressions against animals. Study 1 (N = 288) and Study 2 (N = 306, pre-registered) utilized a conjunction fallacy paradigm to show that people attributed harming animals most frequently to criminals, then to God-believers, and least often to nonbelievers. Study 3 (N = 248, pre-registered) used a job-choice paradigm and found that people choose a God-believer over an atheist for a job involving animal harm because the God-believer was supposed to hold a more hierarchical view of the relationship between humans and animals than the atheist. Consequently, we discuss the limits of antiatheist prejudice in the domain of human–animal interactions.

References

  • Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. E. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113–133. 10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baguley, T. (2012). Serious Stats: A guide to advanced statistics for the behavioral sciences. Macmillan International Higher Education. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., & Hodson, G. (2012). When closing the human–animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 421–429. 10.1177/1948550611425106 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Besta, T., & Błażek, M. (2007). Polish adaptation of religious fundamentalism scale by B. Altmeyer and B. Hunsberger. The Review of Psychology, 50(4), 347–365. 10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 898–909. 10.1177/0146167214529800 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Lay beliefs about the causes of and solutions to dehumanization and prejudice: Do nonexperts recognize the role of human–animal relations? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(4), 278–288. 10.1111/jasp.12221 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cox, C. R., Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., & Weise, D. (2007). Disgust, creatureliness and the accessibility of death-related thoughts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 494–507. 10.1002/ejsp.370 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DeLeeuw, J., Galen, L., Aebersold, C., & Stanton, V. (2007). Support for animal rights as a function of belief in evolution, religious fundamentalism, and religious denomination. Society & Animals, 15(4), 353–363. 10.1163/156853007X235528 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and society. An introduction to human–animal studies. Columbia University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Galvin, S. L., & Herzog, H. A. (1992). Ethical ideology, animal rights activism, and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Ethics & Behavior, 2(3), 141–149. 10.1207/s15327019eb0203_1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gervais, W. M. (2014). Everything is permitted? People intuitively judge immorality as representative of atheists. PLoS ONE, 9(4), Article e92302. 10.1371/journal.pone.0092302 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gervais, W. M., Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1189–1206. 10.1037/a0025882 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gervais, W. M., Xygalatas, D., McKay, R. T., Van Elk, M., Buchtel, E. E., Aveyard, M., Aveyard, M., Schiavone, S. R., Dar-Nimrod, I., Svedholm-Häkkinen, A. M., Riekki, T., Klocová, E. K., Ramsay, J. E., & Bulbulia, J. (2017). Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(8), Article 0151. 10.1038/s41562-017-0151 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1048. 10.1037/a0015141 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. P. (2012). Religiosity and prejudice revisited: In-group favoritism, out-group derogation, or both?. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4(2), 154–168. 10.1037/a0025107 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McPhetres, J., Jong, J., & Zuckerman, M. (2021). Religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward science, but this does not extend to other cultures. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(4), 528–536. 10.1177/1948550620923239 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Minton, E. A. (2020). Reducing crimes against wildlife through promoting animal–human continuity beliefs: The role of consumers' religiosity. Psychology & Marketing, 37(12), 1731–1742. 10.1002/mar.21415 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Moon, J. W., Krems, J. A., & Cohen, A. B. (2021). Is there anything good about atheists? Exploring positive and negative stereotypes of the religious and nonreligious. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(8), 1505–1516. 10.1177/1948550620982703 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Peek, C. W., Konty, M. A., & Frazier, T. E. (1997). Religion and ideological support for social movements: The case of animal rights. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(3), 429–439. 10.2307/1387859 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rabinovitch, A. (2023, February 23). The limits of antiatheist prejudice. https://osf.io/k5t2f First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rothgerber, H. (2020). Meat-related cognitive dissonance: A conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals. Appetite, 146, Article 104511. 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70. 10.1177/1088868317698288 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2015). The unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1147–1163. 10.1177/0146167215591501 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sekerdej, M., Kossowska, M., & Czernatowicz-Kukuczka, A. (2018). Uncertainty and prejudice: The role of religiosity in shaping group attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), O91–O102. 10.1002/ejsp.2298 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Templer, D. I., Connelly, H. J., Bassman, L., & Hart, J. (2006). Construction and validation of an animal-human continuity scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(7), 769–776. 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.7.769 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Trzebiatowska, M. (2021). Presuming religious congruence? The nonreligious and Catholicism in Poland. Social Compass, 68(4), 653–670. 10.1177/0037768621994746 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315. 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Uenal, F., Sidanius, J., Maertens, R., Hudson, S. K. T., Davis, G., & Ghani, A. (2022). The roots of ecological dominance orientation: Assessing individual preferences for an anthropocentric and hierarchically organized world. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101783 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van Mulukom, V., Turpin, H., Haimila, R., Purzycki, B. G., Bendixen, T., Kundtová Klocová, E., Řezníček, D., Coleman, T. J., III, Sevinç, K., Maraldi, E., Schjoedt, U., Rutjens, B. T., & Farias, M. (2022). What do nonreligious nonbelievers believe in? Secular worldviews around the world. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 15(1), 143–156. 10.1037/rel0000480 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wrenn, C. L. (2019). Atheism in the American animal rights movement: An invisible majority. Environmental Values, 28(6), 715–739. 10.3197/096327119X15579936382509 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wright, J., & Nichols, R. (2014). The social cost of atheism: How perceived religiosity influences moral appraisal. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 14(1–2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342112 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar