The New Testament vs. The Quran: Americans’ Beliefs About the Content of Muslim and Christian Holy Texts

IF 2 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Eriksen P. Ravey, Ryan L. Boyd, Adam K. Fetterman
{"title":"The New Testament vs. The Quran: Americans’ Beliefs About the Content of Muslim and Christian Holy Texts","authors":"Eriksen P. Ravey, Ryan L. Boyd, Adam K. Fetterman","doi":"10.1177/0261927X231176822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The stereotypes and biases that people have about various religions may not be applied to just the individuals who belong to those religions, but to the belief systems themselves. We hypothesized that non-Muslim and Muslim Americans would demonstrate biased estimates about the language content of the Quran and New Testament holding positive views towards their relative ingroup and negative views towards the outgroup text. We used two samples (N1 = 163, N2 = 204) of Americans and the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count Software (LIWC) to test our hypotheses. We determined the differences between the texts across language categories. Participants then rated the categories in terms of their relative frequency across the texts. We compared these ratings to the actual differences between the texts. As hypothesized, participants perceived the ingroup text as positive and the outgroup text as negative. We discuss whether biased beliefs about religious teachings may be separate from but aligned with biases against believers and further contribute to religious stereotypes.","PeriodicalId":47861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231176822","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The stereotypes and biases that people have about various religions may not be applied to just the individuals who belong to those religions, but to the belief systems themselves. We hypothesized that non-Muslim and Muslim Americans would demonstrate biased estimates about the language content of the Quran and New Testament holding positive views towards their relative ingroup and negative views towards the outgroup text. We used two samples (N1 = 163, N2 = 204) of Americans and the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count Software (LIWC) to test our hypotheses. We determined the differences between the texts across language categories. Participants then rated the categories in terms of their relative frequency across the texts. We compared these ratings to the actual differences between the texts. As hypothesized, participants perceived the ingroup text as positive and the outgroup text as negative. We discuss whether biased beliefs about religious teachings may be separate from but aligned with biases against believers and further contribute to religious stereotypes.
《新约》与《古兰经》:美国人对穆斯林和基督教经典内容的看法
人们对各种宗教的刻板印象和偏见可能不仅适用于信仰这些宗教的个人,而且适用于信仰体系本身。我们假设非穆斯林和穆斯林美国人对《古兰经》和《新约》的语言内容会表现出有偏见的估计,对他们的相对内群体持积极看法,对外群体文本持消极看法。我们使用两个美国人样本(N1 = 163, N2 = 204)和语言调查字数统计软件(LIWC)来检验我们的假设。我们确定了不同语言类别的文本之间的差异。然后,参与者根据它们在文本中的相对频率对这些类别进行评级。我们将这些评分与文本之间的实际差异进行了比较。正如假设的那样,参与者认为群内文本是积极的,而群外文本是消极的。我们讨论了对宗教教义的偏见是否可能与对信徒的偏见分开,但又与之一致,并进一步助长宗教刻板印象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Language and Social Psychology explores the social dimensions of language and the linguistic implications of social life. Articles are drawn from a wide range of disciplines, including linguistics, cognitive science, sociology, communication, psychology, education, and anthropology. The journal provides complete and balanced coverage of the latest developments and advances through original, full-length articles, short research notes, and special features as Debates, Courses and Conferences, and Book Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信