Does Religious Priming Induce Greater Prejudice? A Meta-Analytic Review.

The current meta-analysis addressed whether theistic religious beliefs are causally related to greater prejudice by analyzing 44 studies (Ntotal = 11,330) that used experimental designs-priming religion and then measuring negativity toward outgroups (e.g., LGBT and Muslim). The overall priming effect was significant but small (r = .06), indicating that priming religion increases prejudice. The implications of these results for the relation between religion and prejudice and for future work on religious priming are discussed.

Culture Moderates the Relation Between Gender Inequality and Well-Being.

Research on the relation of gender inequality and subjective well-being (SWB) has produced inconsistent results. We suggest that culture moderates this relation such that inequality has a greater adverse effect in liberal than in conservative societies. The present studies, using aggregate data from 86 countries (Study 1) and 145,975 individuals' data from 69 countries (Study 2), support this notion. Among liberal countries, inequality was negatively related to SWB for both men and women; there was some evidence that this relation was stronger for women. In conservative countries, the relation was not significant. Previously, the same liberal-conservative continuum moderated the relation between income inequality and SWB for groups with both high and low socioeconomic status (SES) but particularly for the low-SES group. The similarity in results across two different studies strongly supports the notion that the relation between inequality and SWB is contingent on where specific cultures are located on the liberal-conservative continuum.

The Negative Intelligence-Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence.

Zuckerman et al. (2013) conducted a meta-analysis of 63 studies that showed a negative intelligence-religiosity relation (IRR). As more studies have become available and because some of Zuckerman et al.'s (2013) conclusions have been challenged, we conducted a new meta-analysis with an updated data set of 83 studies. Confirming previous conclusions, the new analysis showed that the correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs in college and noncollege samples ranged from -.20 to -.23. There was no support for mediation of the IRR by education but there was support for partial mediation by analytic cognitive style. Thus, one possible interpretation for the IRR is that intelligent people are more likely to use analytic style (i.e., approach problems more rationally). An alternative (and less interesting) reason for the mediation is that tests of both intelligence and analytic style assess cognitive ability. Additional empirical and theoretical work is needed to resolve this issue.

Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy.

Past research suggests that religion and science may conflict on which is a better tool for explaining the world. This conflict implies that religiosity might negatively impact both attitudes toward science and science knowledge. However, past research has focused mostly on religious affiliation and has not consistently identified such a relation using a general religiosity measure that assesses religious beliefs and religious practice. Using two large, nationally representative datasets as well as two original datasets, and controlling for relevant demographic variables, four studies (N = 9,205) showed that general measures of religiosity are negatively associated with science knowledge, a relation that was partially mediated by an association between religiosity and negative attitudes toward science. Study 2 also showed that parents' reports about their religiosity and its role in their children's upbringing predicted, some 20 years later, their children's attitudes toward science. The studies are correlational but the longitudinal relations in Study 2 suggests that religiosity might undermine science literacy.

Religion as an Exchange System: The Interchangeability of God and Government in a Provider Role.

An exchange model of religion implies that if a secular entity such as government provides what people need, they will be less likely to seek help from supernatural entities. Controlling for quality of life and income inequality (Gini), we found that better government services were related to lower religiosity among countries (Study 1) and states in the United States (Study 2). Study 2 also showed that during 2008-2013, better government services in a specific year predicted lower religiosity 1 to 2 years later. In both studies, a combination of better government services and quality of life was related to a particularly low level of religiosity. Among countries, government services moderated the relation between religiosity and two measures of well-being, such that religiosity was related to greater well-being only when government services were low. We discuss the relation between the exchange model and other theoretical approaches to religion.

Societal Conditions and the Gender Difference in Well-Being: Testing a Three-Stage Model.

Findings from a meta-analysis on gender differences in self-esteem (Zuckerman et al., 2016) suggest that the relation between the degree to which societal conditions are favorable to women and gender difference in self-esteem might be quadratic; when conditions improve, women's self-esteem (relative to that of men) trends downward but when conditions continue to improve, women's self-esteem begins to trend upward. Testing whether these relations generalize to subjective well-being, the present study found a quadratic relation between improving societal conditions and the gender difference in life satisfaction and positive affect (women are lower than men when societal conditions are moderately favorable compared to when they are at their worst and at their best); the relation was linear for negative emotion (women report more negative emotions than men when societal conditions are better). Directions for future research that will address potential explanations for these results are proposed.

Smoking at the workplace: Effects of genetic and environmental causal accounts on attitudes towards smoking employees and restrictive policies.

People hold diverse beliefs regarding the etiologies of individual and group differences in behaviors which, in turn, might affect their attitudes and behaviors. It is important to establish how perceived etiologies for smoking might affect the effectiveness of policy initiatives and prevention efforts. The present study assessed whether exposure to genetic vs. environmental accounts for smoking affects attitudes towards a) workplace-related smoking policies and b) smokers at the workplace. Results indicate that exposure to a genetic explanation led to stronger objections to a smoking restrictive policy compared with a non-genetic explanation. Additionally, participants in the genetic condition were more accepting of a smoker in the workplace than in the environmental condition. Evidently, beliefs about the etiology of smoking influence a range of attitudes related to smokers and smoking related policies.

Unpriming or strategizing? A critique of Sparrow and Wegner.

When asked to randomly select answer choices on easy multiple choice questions, people select more correct answers than expected by chance. Sparrow and Wegner showed that this tendency was eliminated if participants answered questions correctly before answering randomly. They argued that answering a question correctly unprimes the tendency to choose the correct answer, thereby reducing the correct response rate close to the chance level of.5. An alternative explanation, consistent with these results, is that answering questions correctly provides a baseline, which allows participants to strategize, i.e., to match and mismatch equal numbers of their purportedly random responses to the baseline response. Three studies showed that the presence of a baseline, even when unpriming is not feasible, led to lower correct response rates than those obtained in a condition in which no baseline was available. Furthermore, the presence of a baseline led to more nonrandom sequences of correct and incorrect responses. One specific sequence-alternating correct and incorrect answers-mediated the relation between the presence of a baseline and lower correct response rate. These findings suggest that strategizing, not unpriming, accounts for Sparrow and Wegner's results.

The relation between intelligence and religiosity: a meta-analysis and some proposed explanations.

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from -.20 to -.25 (mean r = -.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

The effects of learning about one's own genetic susceptibility to alcoholism: a randomized experiment.

PURPOSE: Increased accessibility of direct-to-consumer personalized genetic reports raises the question: how are people affected by information about their own genetic predispositions? METHODS: Participants were led to believe that they had entered a study on the genetics of alcoholism and sleep disorders. Participants provided a saliva sample purportedly to be tested for the presence of relevant genes. While awaiting the results, they completed a questionnaire assessing their emotional state. They subsequently received a bogus report about their genetic susceptibility and completed a questionnaire about their emotional state and items assessing perceived control over drinking, relevant future drinking-related intentions, and intervention-related motivation and behavior. RESULTS: Participants who were led to believe that they had a gene associated with alcoholism showed an increase in negative affect, decrease in positive affect, and reduced perceived personal control over drinking. Reported intentions for alcohol consumption in the near future were not affected; however, individuals were more likely to enroll in a "responsible drinking" workshop after learning of their alleged genetic susceptibility. CONCLUSION: The first complete randomized experiment to examine the psychological and behavioral effects of receiving personalized genetic susceptibility information indicates some potential perils and benefits of direct-to-consumer genetic tests.

Self-enhancement by social comparison: a prospective analysis.

A longitudinal investigation showed that self-enhancement by social comparison (assessing whether people perceive themselves more positively than they perceive others) was prospectively related to an increase in self-reported adjustment, controlling for the effects of narcissism. Better adjustment, including higher self-esteem, was not prospectively related to an increase in self-enhancement. The investigation also included a diary period, allowing the assessment of intrasubject covariation between daily reports of self-esteem and daily reports of perceived challenge and daily events (positive or negative). High (compared to low) self-enhancers were less likely to report lower self-esteem under higher challenge and less likely to report higher self-esteem under positive events.

Costs of self-handicapping.

Four studies examined the relation of trait self-handicapping with health-related measures. Study 1 showed that, over time, self-handicapping and maladjustment reinforce each other. Study 2 showed that self-handicappers reported a loss in competence satisfaction which, in turn, mediated the relation of self-handicapping with negative mood. Study 3 found that, over time, self-handicappers report an increase in substance use. Study 4 showed that self-handicappers reported a loss in intrinsic motivation for their jobs. It was suggested that people with unstable (or contingent) self-esteem use self-handicapping to bolster a fragile self-concept.

What individuals believe they can and cannot do: explorations of realistic and unrealistic control beliefs.

We examined construct validity and implications of scales that assess perceived control over controllable events (realistic control belief) and perceived control over uncontrollable events (unrealistic control belief). We found that people high in unrealistic control belief are less likely to discriminate between controllable and uncontrollable situations and to distort task outcomes so as to make them appear more favorable (more under control). We also found that people high in realistic control belief are more likely to assume responsibility for past mistakes. In additional studies on coping and health risk behavior, higher realistic control belief was related to direct engagement with the stressor and to less risky sexual behavior; higher unrealistic control belief was related to less emotional processing and to more risky sexual behavior. The results demonstrate a need to discriminate between the two types of control beliefs.

Testing discrepancy effects: a critique, a suggestion, and an illustration.

To assess the effects of discrepancy between two independent variables, investigators sometimes compute difference scores and correlate such scores with a criterion variable. However, the correlation of the difference with the criterion is accounted for by the correlations of the difference constituents with the criterion and the constituents' variances. It follows that when investigators are testing a prediction that is not captured by the difference constituents' main effects, using the difference correlation analysis may be misleading. Under these circumstances, the effects of a discrepancy between two independent variables can be assessed by a test of their interaction. The problems inherent in using difference scores and the advantage of testing the interaction are illustrated in relation to research programs on two separate topics in social psychology.