{"title":"反无神论偏见的极限","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
