The Limits of Antiatheist Prejudice

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Aleksandra Rabinovitch, K. Cantarero, K. Szocik
{"title":"The Limits of Antiatheist Prejudice","authors":"Aleksandra Rabinovitch, K. Cantarero, K. Szocik","doi":"10.1027/1864-9335/a000516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":47278,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000516","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
反无神论偏见的极限
摘要:人们往往认为无神论者不道德。我们测试了这种看法是否也适用于对动物的道德违背。研究1 (N = 288)和研究2 (N = 306,预登记)使用了一个连接谬误范式,表明人们最常将伤害动物归咎于罪犯,其次是上帝信徒,而不常归咎于非信徒。研究3 (N = 248,预先登记)使用了一个工作选择范例,发现人们在涉及动物伤害的工作中选择信神的人而不是无神论者,因为信神的人比无神论者对人与动物之间的关系持有更分层的观点。因此,我们讨论了反无神论偏见在人与动物相互作用领域的局限性。
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
Social Psychology
Social Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
×
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