4.4 Article

Thinking About God Discourages Dehumanization of Religious Outgroups

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL
Volume 151, Issue 10, Pages 2586-2603

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/xge0001206

Keywords

intergroup relations; religion; dehumanization

Funding

  1. Templeton Religion Trust [TRT0189]
  2. National Science Foundation [SES-0962080, SES-1949467]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we investigate how belief in moralizing gods influences dehumanization of ethno-religious outgroups, and find that individuals generally attribute more positive human qualities to outgroup members when considering the perspective of God. Additionally, thinking about God's views can promote more positive intergroup attitudes.
In seven studies, six with American Christians and one with Israeli Jews (total N = 2,323), we examine how and when belief in moralizing gods influences dehumanization of ethno-religious outgroups. We focus on dehumanization because it is a key feature of intergroup conflict. In Studies 1-6, participants completed measures of dehumanization from their own perspectives and also from the perspective of God, rating the groups' humanity as they thought God would rate it, or wish for them to rate it. When participants completed measures from both their own and God's perspectives, they reported believing that, compared with their own views, God would see (or prefer for them to see) outgroup members as more human. In Study 7, we extend these findings by demonstrating that thinking about God's views reduces the extent to which religious believers personally dehumanize outgroup members. Collectively, results demonstrate that religious believers attribute universalizing moral attitudes to God, compared to themselves, and document how thinking about God's views can promote more positive intergroup attitudes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available