Pathogen avoidance, ethnocentrism and religiosity

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Pathogen avoidance, ethnocentrism and religiosity

Abstract

religious conservatism ethnocentrism avoidance

Humans have a set of psychological mechanisms, that help them to avoid sources of pathogens, the Behavioral Immune System (BIS). Previous findings state that the BIS can contribute to ethnocentric attitudes.

However, it is still a question how the BIS can encourage in-group preference and out-group negativity. Recent research suggests that the social conservative value system can be a mediator between pathogen avoidance motivations and out-group negativity. The aim of the paper is to investigate whether religious conservatism, as one of the social conservative value systems, can mediate the relationship between pathogen avoidance motivations and ethnocentrism. In order to test this hypothesis, the mediation analysis was conducted on a sample of 177 people from Russia. The results of analysis did not prove the relationship between pathogen avoidance motivations and ethnocentrism.

Mediation model was not confirmed as well, however, religious conservatism and ethnocentrism were significantly related. It can be that pathogen threat alone does not elicit ethnocentric attitudes and should be combined with other measures of the BIS or the relationship between the BIS and ethnocentrism is better explained by other social conservative value systems, such as social dominance orientation or right-wing authoritarianism. People tend to favor their own group and use it as a scale to evaluate others. This phenomenon is called ethnocentrism.

Sumner (1906) argued that ethnocentrism produces a group's pride while looking down on outgroups, thus at the same time, a person has a positive view toward in-groups and a negative view toward out-groups. It was found that this process is also related to pathogen avoidance as in-group preferences and out-group avoidance are evolutionary important for survival and health (Faulkner, Schaller, Park, & Duncan, 2004). Regarded as a universal issue found in all cultures, religion can justify ethnocentric attitudes and, as a social conservative value system, help pathogen avoidance mechanisms to operate. The present study examines the role of religiosity in relationship between pathogen avoidance and ethnocentrism.

1.Pathogen avoidance and ethnocentrism

The behavioral immune system (BIS) is a set of psychological mechanisms that trigger pathogen avoidance (Schaller, 2011). This implies that people's ability to identify possible infectious threats and especially their tendency to avoid these infection risks, encourages the disease avoidance strategy of people. However, the one paradoxical finding is that, sometimes, people are inclined to discriminate and avoid those, who possess no potential infection threat, but just appear to be alien or unfamiliar to the perceiver, such as foreign people (Murray & Schaller, 2016). The major consequence of this process is that people tend to stigmatize those who can potentially pose such sort of inferred pathogen threat. When the perceiver feels especially vulnerable to disease (e. g. after watching a slide show that made a threat posed by infectious diseases temporarily salient), the BIS can produce even more prominent pathogen avoidance response and a set of associated prejudice behaviors (Duncan & Schaller, 2009).

The main reason of such discrimination toward out-groups is that usually they (e.g., obese people, homeless or foreigners) look or behave somewhat differently from the perceiver and their in-groups. A second reason is that the BIS comes into play when there is a potential danger to become infected with exotic disease, which out-groups distribute. A third reason is that foreigners are more likely to interfere into local rituals and violate group norms regarding avoidance of disease transmission (e.g., hygiene practices, food preparation) (Murray & Schaller, 2016).

Empirical research supports these implications. For example, women in the early stages of pregnancy are easily disgusted, but they also tend to report especially strong xenophobic attitudes at this period (Navarrete, Fessler, & Eng, 2007). In one experiment, conducted by Faulkner, Schaller, Park and Duncan (2004), Canadian participants executed a task that evaluated the extent to which they favored immigrants from familiar countries compared to immigrants from more subjectively foreign countries. Before that prejudice evaluation, participants were primed with a slide show about infections, which made the threat posed by infectious diseases salient. Results showed that, compared to the control condition, the disease-salient condition led to more xenophobic attitudes toward immigrants from unfamiliar countries.

In-group bias, according to Navarrete, Kurzban, Fessler, & Kirkpatrick (2004), refers to the system of psychological mechanisms, aimed to maintain or create important coalitional ties with the group, when different challenges interfere. Consequently, they found that disease can be viewed as such a challenge, eliciting via disease avoidance mechanism, not only negativity toward out-groups but also attraction toward the in-group. Overall, according to Sumner (1906), negativity towards out-groups, combined with the positive attraction to the in-groups, comprises ethnocentrism. Some authors have claimed that positive in-group attitudes may come before out-group negativity as a core psychological feature of intergroup attitudes and that the intergroup bias is elicited by people's desire to survive and be reproductively successful (Brewer, 2001). However, the relationship between pathogen avoidance and positive in-group attitudes is less studied than negativity toward out-groups. In the present research I am going to focus upon the work of Navarrete and Fessler (2006) which extends the disease-avoidance model of intergroup attitudes introduced by Faulkner and colleagues (2004). By doing so, I hope to accentuate the relationship between pathogen avoidance and in-group attractiveness. Taking it into account, I propose the first hypothesis:

H1: Pathogen avoidance motivations are related to ethnocentrism.

2.Religiosity and ethnocentrism

Religiosity has been shown to positively correlate with ethnocentrism as well. First of all, the classical work of Sumner (1906) on ethnocentrism states that each group “exalts its own divinities”, that is religiosity can be an identification characteristic of the group, which can become a basis for out-group prejudices. For example, Allport and Kramer (1946) demonstrated that White individuals who reported having a religious affiliation exhibited more prejudice toward African-Americans than those who reported no religious affiliation. Jackson and Hunsberger (1999) conducted a study on the relationships between individuals' religiosity and their prejudicial attitudes toward religious and non-religious others. They found that religious participants showed significant positive attitudes towards in-group-religious others but negative attitudes towards non-religious others. Besides, the magnitude of the prejudice was correspondent to the individual's own level of religiosity. That is, a participant who scored highly on religiosity also scored highly on out-group prejudice.

Moreover, religion can justify ethnocentrism. Many groups have religious beliefs, stories, and myths to establish the uniqueness of the ethnic group. Some religious ideas, such as God's “chosen people”, can endorse ethnocentric thinking and behavior (Sumner, 1906). Religious fundamentalism has the strongest relation with ethnocentrism. It consists of beliefs, feelings, and practices that produce the opinion that one's own religion and religious group are more valuable than others (Almond, Appleby, & Sivan 2003). Recent research in both religious orthodoxy and religious fundamentalism predicted prejudice toward out-groups (Rowatt, Wade, Tsang, Kelly, & LaMartina, 2006; Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010). Moreover, it was found that children, having had a religious training in the family and have identified with family religion, tend to do stronger “us-them” judgements as adults (Altemeyer, 2003).

However, even though these studies highlight the importance of religiosity as a marker of out-group prejudice, I can hypothesize that as long as religiosity triggers out-group negativity, it also could generate in-group positivity, because these two processes are interrelated. For example, Thiruchselvam, Gopi, Kilekwang, Harper and Gross (2017) found that non-religious individuals show lower levels of social conformity, compared to religious people, using both self-reported and neural measures of susceptibility to the group opinion. Saroglou, Delpierre and Dernelle (2004) performed a meta-analysis of the connection between Schwartz's model of 10 basic human values (Schwartz, 1992), that are stable across different nations. Religiosity has been found to positively correlate with values that encouraged social order (e.g. Tradition and Conformity). In a separate study, it was demonstrated that New Zealand Christians were more altruistic toward Canadian Christians than were New Zealand citizens to other New Zealand citizens (Bulbulia & Mahoney, 2008). Similarly, Widman, Corcoran and Nagy (2009) showed that individuals with strong Christian beliefs were more likely to rate others displaying a symbol of Christianity (a cross) as kinder and more moral than others not displaying such a symbol. This leads us to the following hypothesis:

H2: Religious conservatism is related to ethnocentrism.

Social conservatism as defined by Terrizzi, Shook and McDaniel (2013) is a belief system that promotes prejudice towards out-group members and strong commitment to social normative systems (e.g. religious or political norms). Adherence to social norms serves to unify people as a group and to distinguish in-group and out-group members in order to avoid deviants. As the main function of the BIS is to avoid potential sources of contamination (e.g. out-group members) it can relate to social conservatism, which triggers inclination to group norms, out-group avoidance and in-group cohesion. Indeed, the BIS has been found to correlate with social dominance, right-wing authoritarianism, political conservatism, introversion, and close-mindedness (Druschel & Sherman, 1999; Duncan, Schaller, & Park, 2009; Hodson & Costello, 2007; Inbar, Pizarro, & Bloom, 2009; Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010).

Similarly, the BIS was found to be a predictor of religious conservatism (Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis 2012). Religious conservatism is one of the social conservative value systems along with social dominance, right-wing authoritarianism and political conservatism, which promotes adherence to religious traditions and negativity towards different out-groups, which are regarded deviant according to religious rules. Besides, studies have shown a connection between contamination concerns and religiosity (Tek & Ulug, 2001), sometimes purification practices are included as a part of religious rituals in many confessions (Sica, Novara, & Sanavio, 2002). Building on the previous work, I suggest that pathogen avoidance mechanisms will be related to religious conservatism and propose the following hypothesis:

H3: Pathogen avoidance motivations are related to religious conservatism.

3.Mediation role of religious conservatism

On the one hand, research shows that the BIS influences in-group positivity and out-group negativity, leading to ethnocentric attitudes. However, it has not been studied yet what mechanisms underline the process by which the BIS can encourage social conformity and prejudices against out-groups. The scientific evidence suggests that relation between the BIS and out-group negativity is at least partially mediated by social conservatism (Hodson & Costello, 2007; Olatunji, 2008; Terrizzi et al., 2012). More specifically, Olatunji (2008) and Terrizzi and colleagues (2010) tested that religious conservatism, as a belief system that fosters in-group cohesion by dictating adherence to religious traditions, customs and rituals, mediates the relation between disgust avoidance and prejudice toward out-groups.

Therefore, the social conservative value systems can operate as a pathogen-avoidance strategy by promoting out-group negativity. For example, the 2 studies by Terrizzi and colleagues (2012) showed that the BIS unconsciously encourage religious conservatism, operating to avoid potential sources of contamination. Particularly, the study has proved a mediating role of religious fundamentalism in the relationship between the BIS and prejudice towards bisexuals. Disgust and fear of contamination predicted religious fundamentalism, which in turn predicted negativity towards out-groups. Even though mediation model was only partially supported, the results tell that the BIS can influence in- and out-group preferences by encouraging social conservative value systems.

I can hypothesize that as long as religious conservatism mediates the relation between disease avoidance and out-group negativity, it also could mediate the relationship between disease avoidance and in-group positivity, because these two processes are strongly connected. Together, these findings provide evidence for the following hypothesis:

H4: Religious conservatism mediates the relationship between pathogen avoidance motivations and ethnocentrism.

Method

Sampling and data collection

The present study contributes to research of pathogen avoidance and intergroup attitudes by conducting a study with participants from Russia. Most recent research on this topic has sampled from North-American populations. However, other populations seem suitable for testing the hypotheses involving religious conservatism. Russia has been found to have rather high religious rate. Religion is an important part of Russian people lives, and a component of their national identity (Greeley, 1994). Moreover, all humans appear to have the BIS and a tendency to avoid perceived pathogen threats. That is why I think, that observed relationships between pathogen avoidance motivations, religiosity and ethnocentrism can be applied to any population, not only North-American. It seems as a good reason to see if mediation hypothesis can be confirmed by using the Russian sample.

In the present study it was necessary to observe an indirect effect of pathogen avoidance on ethnocentrism through religious conservatism. The required sample size should be not less than 150 participants in order to test at least partially mediating model with slightly less than medium effect sizes (б=0.26; в=0.26) and to reach an adequate statistical power of 0.80 (Cohen, 1990; Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007). Consequently, at least 150 adults, who were raised in Russia, were recruited to participate in the survey. Sampling was done by posting an advertisement about the survey in social networks. Those, who agreed to take part in it, became participants. At the same time, some respondents were asked to participate in the survey directly, e.g. relatives, friends, colleagues at work etc. Participation in the survey was anonymous. Participants were told that their participation would help the development of science and that the goals of the study were to research the connection between feelings of disgust and different social phenomena, such as religious fundamentalism, xenophobia, level of income and shaming in social networks (the data collection was done together with other students, doing research on disgust avoidance). By participating in the survey people took part in the lottery, and three winners were randomly chosen and assigned a compensation.

Procedure, measures and design of the study

Participants filled in the questionnaire, consisting of the Three Domain Disgust Scale, Revised 12-item Religious Fundamentalism Scale and The Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale. The survey also included questions about demographics, such as age and sex. Cultural affiliation of the participants was measured by the question “What country have you lived in for the most of your life?” All materials were translated into Russian language by a native speaker.

Pathogen avoidance motivations was assessed with Three Domain Disgust Scale, which measures an individual's sensitivity to disgusting stimuli and includes pathogen, sexual and moral domain of disgust. Previous research has proved the predictive validity of the disease avoidant elements of disgust (Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009). In the present research I used only the pathogen subscale. The pathogen subscale evaluates a person's sensitivity to potential sources of contamination (e.g. feces). The reliability of the scale is satisfactory (Cronbach's б = .73) (Table 1). The scale consists of 7 items (e.g. “Shaking hands with a stranger who has sweaty palms”; “Seeing a cockroach run across the floor”) for which participants rated how disgusting they find each item on a scale from 0 (not at all disgusting) to 6 (extremely disgusting).

Religious conservatism was assessed by Revised 12-item Religious Fundamentalism Scale (e.g. “The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God”; “To lead the best, most meaningful life, one must belong to the one, fundamentally true religion”). The new shortened version of the scale was found to be reliable in previous research (alpha reliability coefficient of .92; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004). In the current study scale showed high reliability as well with Cronbach's б of .90 (Table 1). Participants indicated the extent to which they agree with a series of religious statements, using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). Participants were not asked about their confession.

To measure ethnocentrism, the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale, established by Neuliep & McCroskey (1997), was used. It consists of 22 items (e.g. “My culture should be the role model for other cultures”; “I do not cooperate with people who are different”). However, 7 of them are not scored and are added only to balance the number of negatively and positively formulated questions, so I excluded them to make the scale shorter. Participants could indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each item, using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). This scale was proved to be a reliable measure of ethnocentric attitudes (Cronbach's б = .92) (Neuliep, 2002). In the present study reliability of the scale was high as well (Cronbach's б = .82) (Table 1).

In order to test hypotheses, I conducted a mediation analysis, using the SPSS Process macro, developed by Hayes (Hayes & Rockwood, 2017). Despite the fact that Baron and Kenny's Causal-Steps Test (1986) is the most commonly used test of mediation, it does not calculate the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable through the mediator. The Process macro enables us to estimate the total, direct and indirect effects of independent variable on the dependent variable and reports regression coefficients and confidence intervals.

The significance level of the indirect effect can be estimated by the Preacher and Hayes bootstrapping method (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), which provides an increase in power, comparing to the Sobel's test (Sobel, 1982). As a non-parametric test, the bootstrapping approach does not require a normal distribution of the data and can be used for small sample sizes. This method offers point estimates and confidence intervals by which the significance or non-significance of a mediation effect can be assessed. If the confidence intervals of the indirect effect do not include a zero, it can be concluded that there is a significant mediation effect.

Besides, in order to be confident that mediation effect is not accounted for age or gender differences between participants, I controlled the model for age and gender, by including these variables as covariates.

Results

The total number of initial responses to the survey was 230. After filtering out previews, incomplete responses, the response of one person of 17 years old and six responses by people from other countries than Russia, I have got a sample of 177 responses. The participants of the survey were people from 20 to 72 years old (N=177, M=29.82, SD=10.34) who lived most of their lives in Russia. Female participants were the majority (64%), compared to men (36%).

After some items of Revised 12-item Religious Fundamentalism Scale were reversed, the mean score was computed for every scale. The Gender variable was coded “1” for male participant and “2” for female participant. All scales showed high reliability (Cronbach's б >.70). The descriptive statistics for variables used for analysis can be found in the Table 1.

In order to test hypotheses, first of all, I conducted correlational analysis. I can say that Pathogen Avoidance Motivations had no significant correlations with either Religious Conservatism or Ethnocentrism. However, it has significant positive correlations with Gender and slight negative correlation with Age. On the other hand, Religious Conservatism was positively related to Ethnocentrism and Age and had non-significant negative relationship with Gender.

After that, I run analysis to test for mediation, using the SPSS Process macro, developed by Hayes (Hayes & Rockwood, 2017). Note, that I will report unstandardized coefficients, consistent with Hayes & Rockwood`s (2017) argument, that they are the preferred metric when reporting results of causal modeling. Missing data was excluded in the process of analysis by listwise deletion method.

The bootstrapping analysis, controlling for age and gender (N=173), found that the total effect of pathogen avoidance motivations on ethnocentrism (path c) was not significant (b= 0.07, t (169) = 1.65, p = .101) (Figure 1). The overall model was non-significant (R² = .02, F (3,169) = 1.20, p = .309) as well. The model, presenting path a, was significant (R²= .01, F (3,169) = 6.21, p <.001), however, pathogen avoidance motivations did not make any significant contribution to the model (b = 0.035, t (169) = .58, p = .563) (Figure 1). On the contrary, age explained some variance in the mediator variable (b = 0.024, t (169) = 4.30, p <.001).

The model calculating the joint effect of pathogen avoidance motivations and religious conservatism on ethnocentrism was overall significant (R² = .06, F (4,168) = 2.64, p = .035). Path b was significant (b = 0.14, t (168) = 2.61, p <.001) (Figure 1), while pathogen avoidance motivations, controlled for mediator variable (path c`), did not have any direct effect on ethnocentrism (b = 0.07, t (168) = 1.56, p = .121) (Figure 1).

Overall, the indirect effect of the pathogen avoidance motivations on ethnocentrism through religious conservatism was non-significant (в = 0.01) (Figure 1), the 95% confidence interval ranges from -.0158 to .0241. According to that, I can conclude that there is no mediation effect of religious conservatism in the relationship between pathogen avoidance motivations and ethnocentrism.

Discussion

As the results showed, only one out of four hypotheses was confirmed. According to correlational analysis and the mediation analysis, religious conservatism was related to ethnocentrism, which is consisted with the previous findings, highlighting the relationship between religiosity and social conformity, prejudice attitudes and ethnocentrism (Almond, Appleby, & Sivan, 2003; Allport & Kramer, 1946; Jackson & Hunsberger, 1999; Sumner, 1906; Thiruchselvam et al., 2017). Thus, religious practices foster adherence to group norms and commemorate the opinion that one's own religion and ethnic group are more valuable than others`. This tendency can lead to negative stereotypes about out-group members and produce prejudice and negativity towards foreigners.

Pathogen avoidance motivations did not have any relation to ethnocentrism and religious conservatism according to correlational analysis and the mediation analysis. The hypothesis, predicting mediating role of religious conservatism in the relationship between pathogen avoidance motivations and ethnocentrism, was not confirmed as well. The study demonstrated some correlations, that were already have been observed before many times, such as that religious conservatism relates to ethnocentrism, that pathogen avoidance motivations differ across genders or that older people tend to be more conservative than youngsters (Druschel & Sherman, 1999).

The previous research stated the relationship between the BIS, ethnocentric attitudes (Faulkner et al., 2004; Navarrete & Fessler, 2006; Faulkner, Schaller, Park and Duncan, 2004) and religious conservatism (Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis 2012). However, the current study did not show the same results. The one possible explanation is that different types of perceived threat can trigger various types of negativity toward out-groups (Terrizzi, Shook, & McDaniel, 2013). For example, prejudice toward homosexuals in the study by Terrizzi and colleagues (2012) correlated mostly with disgust sensitivity and pathogen disgust but had no relation to moral and sexual disgust. It might be possible, that pathogen threat alone does not elicit ethnocentric attitudes. Future researchers should take that into account and try to combine different measures of the BIS, such as Disgust Scale (Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994), Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Scale (Faulkner et al., 2004) and Padua Inventory, used to assess the fear of contamination (Burns, Keortge, Formea, & Sternberger, 1996).

Another consideration is that the Religious Fundamentalism Scale was used to measure religious beliefs on mostly religious samples: Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus (Hunsberger, Owusu, & Duck, 1999; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Altemeyer, 1996). It is not true about my sample. I did not ask respondents about their confession, so, it might be that most people responded negatively on the questions about religious beliefs, simply because they are atheists. Their fundamentalism might have been expressed in some other social conservative value systems, such as social dominance orientation or right-wing authoritarianism.

Moreover, the mediation effect of religious conservatism was observed only in studies, measuring prejudice toward homosexuals as an outcome variable, and none of them were devoted to testing this relationship regarding ethnocentric attitudes (Terrizzi et al., 2012; Olatunji, 2008). There are many social conservative value systems that may be responsible for the role of mediator in the relationship between pathogen avoidance motivations and ethnocentrism. For example, the study by Hodson and Costello (2007) observed that interpersonal-disgust sensitivity had an indirect effect on negative attitudes towards immigrants through ideological orientation (social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism) and dehumanization of out-groups. Future studies should broaden the current framework by using different social conservative value systems as mediators of the relationship between pathogen avoidance and ethnocentrism.

Limitations

The current work has a fair amount of limitations, most of which is connected to the framework of mediation analysis. First of all, as long as the current study uses a cross-sectional data, it is harder to establish proper causal relationships between variables and to estimate which construct is a predictor and which is an outcome (Wood, Rijsdijk, Asherson, & Kuntsi, 2011).

The small size of the sample could negatively influence significance testing, which may be susceptible to small samples in the mediation analysis (Kline, 2015). Moreover, the effect sizes between variables could be so small, that the sample of this size was not able to detect them, as it was calculated to predict partially mediating model with medium effect sizes.

Moreover, the self-selecting bias might have taken place as long as respondents applied voluntarily for the survey. Such people tend to have higher education, higher social status, higher IQ and motivation for approval. The proposed monetary reward also might have attracted more materialistic people (Ziliak, McCloskey, 2008). These factors could contribute to sample being biased and not representative of a population. Moreover, the sample had more females (64%) than males (36%) and the majority of the participants were under 30 years old, which could influence the results, as well. Future research should consider using a larger and more representative and reliable sample in order to test these relationships.

Conclusion

The present study was devoted to the Behavioral Immune System, a set of psychological mechanisms, that help people to avoid perceived pathogen threats. The aim of the study was to understand whether this system encourages negativity towards out-groups and positivity towards in-groups and what is the mechanism underlying this process. I tested the mediation model, where religious conservatism, as one of the social conservative value systems, mediated the relationship between pathogen avoidance motivations and ethnocentrism. Hypotheses were not confirmed but I described some limitations of the study, such as the small sample size and cross-sectional design and suggested some improvements, that could be used in a future research. Overall, scientists nowadays are only starting to explore the Behavioral Immune System, its psychological functions and influence on the people`s behavior. However, even though little research has been done yet in this area, it offers a lot of challenges for a science in the future.

References

Almond, G. A., Appleby, R. S., & Sivan, E. (2003). Strong religion: The rise of fundamentalisms around the world. University of Chicago Press.

Allport, G. W., & Kramer, B. M. (1946). Some roots of prejudice. The Journal of Psychology, 22(1), 9-39.

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why do religious fundamentalists tend to be prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13(1), 17-28.

Altemeyer, R. A., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale: The Short and Sweet of It. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 47-54

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bloom, P. (2004). Descartes' baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. New York: Basic Books.

Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict. Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction, 3, 17-41.

Bulbulia, J., & Mahoney, A. (2008). Religious solidarity: The hand grenade experiment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8(3), 295-320.

Burns, G. L., Keortge, S. G., Formea, G. M., & Sternberger, L. G. (1996). Revision of the Padua Inventory of obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms: distinctions between worry, obsessions, and compulsions. Behavior research and therapy, 34(2), 163-173.

Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312

Curtis, V., Aunger, R., & Rabie, T. (2004). Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 271, S131-S133.

Druschel, B. A., & Sherman, M. F. (1999). Disgust sensitivity as a function of the Big Five and gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(4), 739-748.

Duncan, L. A., & Schaller, M. (2009). Prejudicial attitudes toward older adults may be exaggerated when people feel vulnerable to infectious disease: Evidence and implications. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9, 97-115.

Duncan, L. A., Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2009). Perceived vulnerability to disease: Development and validation of a 15-item self-report instrument. Personality and Individual differences, 47(6), 541-546.

Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 333-353.

Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239.

Greeley, A. M., (1994). A Religious Revival in Russia? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 33, 253-72.

Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701-713.

Hunsberger, B., Owusu, V., & Duck, R. (1999). Religion and prejudice in Ghana and Canada: Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and attitudes toward homosexuals and women. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9, 181-194.

Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behavior Research and Therapy, 98, 39-57.

Hills, P., Francis, L. J., & Robbins, M. (2005). The development of the Revised Religious Life Inventory (RLI-R) by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1389-1399.

Hodson, G., & Costello, K. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18(8), 691-698.

Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and emotion, 23(4), 714-725.

Jackson, L. M., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). An intergroup perspective on religion and prejudice. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 509-523.

Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in evaluation research. Evaluation Research, 5, 602-619.

Kline, R. B. (2017). Mediation analysis in leadership studies: new developments and perspectives. Handbook of Methods in Leadership Research, 173.

Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2016). The behavioral immune system: Implications for social cognition, social interaction, and social influence. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 75-129). Academic Press.

Nabi, R. L. (2002). The theoretical versus the lay meaning of disgust: Implications for emotion research. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 695-703.

Navarrete, C. D., Kurzban, R., Fessler, D. M., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Anxiety and intergroup bias: Terror management or coalitional psychology? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 370-397.

Navarrete, C. D., & Fessler, D. M. (2006). Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: The effects of disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 270-282.

Navarrete, C. D., Fessler, D. M., & Eng, S. J. (2007). Elevated ethnocentrism in the first trimester of pregnancy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1), 60-65.

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of a U. S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14, 385-398

Neuliep, J. W. (2002). Assessing the Reliability and Validity of the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 201-215.

Olatunji, B., Tolin, D., Huppert, J., & Lohr, J. (2005). The relation between fearfulness, disgust sensitivity and religious obsessions in a non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 891-902

Olatunji, B. O. (2008). Disgust, scrupulosity and conservative attitudes about sex: Evidence for a mediational model of homophobia. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1364-1369.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717-731.

Rowatt, W. C., Tsang, J. A., Kelly, J., LaMartina, B., McCullers, M., & McKinley, A. (2006). Associations between religious personality dimensions and implicit homosexual prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(3), 397-406.

Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz's model. Personality and individual differences, 37(4), 721-734.

Schaller, M. (2011). The behavioral immune system and the psychology of human sociality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 366(1583), 3418-3426.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology, 13, 290-312.

Sica, C., Novara, C., & Sanavio, E. (2002). Religiousness and obsessive-compulsive cognitions and symptoms in an Italian population. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 813-823

Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. New York: Mentor.

Tek, C., & Ulug, B. (2001). Religiosity and religious obsessions in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Research, 104(2), 99-108.

Terrizzi, J. A., Jr., Shook, N. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). The behavioral immune system

and social conservatism: A meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 99-108

Terrizzi Jr, J. A., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and individual differences, 49(6), 587-592.

Terrizzi Jr, J. A., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2012). Religious conservatism: An evolutionarily evoked disease-avoidance strategy. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 2(2), 105-120.

Thiruchselvam, R., Gopi, Y., Kilekwang, L., Harper, J., & Gross, J. J. (2017). In God we trust? Neural measures reveal lower social conformity among non-religious individuals. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 12(6), 956-964.

Tybur, J.M., Lieberman, D.L., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 103-122.

Widman, D. R., Corcoran, K. E., & Nagy, R. E. (2009). Belonging to the same religion enhances the opinion of others' kindness and morality. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3(4), 281.

Wood, A. C., Rijsdijk, F., Asherson, P., & Kuntsi, J. (2011). Inferring causation from cross-sectional data: examination of the causal relationship between hyperactivity-impulsivity and novelty seeking. Frontiers in genetics, 2, 6.

Ziliak, S.T., McCloskey, D.N. (2008). The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives, University of Michigan Press.

Appendix

Three-Domain Disgust Scale

The following items describe a variety of concepts. Please rate how disgusting you find the concepts described in the items, where 0 means that you do not find the concept disgusting at all and 6 means that you find the concept extremely disgusting.

		Not at all disgusting						Extremely disgusting
1	Stepping on dog poop	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
2	Sitting next to someone who has red sores on their arm	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
3	Shaking hands with a stranger who has sweaty palms	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
4	Seeing some mold on old leftovers in your refrigerator	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
5	Standing close to a person who has body odor	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
6	Seeing a cockroach run across the floor	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	Accidentally touching a person's bloody cut	0	1	2	3	4	5	6

The Revised 12-Item Religious Fundamentalism Scale

This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social

issues. You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others, to varying extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement by choosing a dot on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree):

1. God has given humanity a complete, unfailing guide to happiness and salvation, which must be totally followed.

2. No single book of religious teachings contains all the intrinsic, fundamental truths about life.*

3. The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God.

4. It is more important to be a good person than to believe in God and the right religion.*

5. There is a particular set of religious teachings in this world that are so true, you can't go any “deeper” because they are the basic, bedrock message that God has given humanity.

6. When you get right down to it, there are basically only two kinds of people in the world: the Righteous, who will be rewarded by God; and the rest, who will not.

7. Scriptures may contain general truths, but they should NOT be considered completely, literally true from beginning to end.*

8. To lead the best, most meaningful life, one must belong to the one, fundamentally true religion.

9. “Satan” is just the name people give to their own bad impulses. There really is no such

thing as a diabolical “Prince of Darkness” who tempts us.*

10. Whenever science and sacred scripture conflict, science is probably right.*

11. The fundamentals of God's religion should never be tampered with or compromised with others' beliefs.

12. All of the religions in the world have flaws and wrong teachings. There is no perfectly true, right religion.*

* indicates item is worded in the con-trait direction, for which the scoring key is reversed.

The Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale

Below are items that relate to the cultures of different parts of the world. Work quickly and record your first reaction to each item. There are no right or wrong answers. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each item using the following five-point scale:

Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 1; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5;

1. Most other cultures are backward compared to my culture.

2. My culture should be the role model for other cultures.

3. Lifestyles in other cultures are just as valid as those in my culture.

4. Other cultures should try to be more like my culture.

5. People in my culture could learn a lot from people in other cultures.

6. Most people from other cultures just don't know what's good for them.

7. I respect the values and customs of other cultures.

8. Other cultures are smart to look up to our culture.

9. Most people would be happier if they lived like people in my culture.

10. People in my culture have just about the best lifestyles of anywhere.

11. Lifestyles in other cultures are not as valid as those in my culture.

12. I do not cooperate with people who are different.

13. I do not trust people who are different.

14. I dislike interacting with people from different cultures.

15. I have little respect for the values and customs of other cultures.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...