Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Anti-Atheist Bias in the United States: Testing Two Critical Assumptions

Download

A- A+
dyslexia friendly

Research Article

Anti-Atheist Bias in the United States: Testing Two Critical Assumptions

Authors:

Lawton K Swan ,

University of Florida, US
About Lawton
Lawton Swan is a Doctoral Candidate in Counseling Psychology at the University of Florida.
X close

Martin Heesacker

University of Florida, US
About Martin
Martin Heesacker is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Florida.
X close

Abstract

Decades of opinion polling and empirical investigations have clearly demonstrated a pervasive anti-atheist prejudice in the United States. However, much of this scholarship relies on two critical and largely unaddressed assumptions: (a) that when people report negative attitudes toward atheists, they do so because they are reacting specifically to their lack of belief in God; and (b) that survey questions asking about attitudes toward atheists as a group yield reliable information about biases against individual atheist targets. To test these assumptions, an online survey asked a probability-based random sample of American adults (N = 618) to evaluate a fellow research participant (“Jordan”). Jordan garnered significantly more negative evaluations when identified as an atheist than when described as religious or when religiosity was not mentioned. This effect did not differ as a function of labeling (“atheist” versus “no belief in God”), or the amount of individuating information provided about Jordan. These data suggest that both assumptions are tenable: nonbelief—rather than extraneous connotations of the word “atheist”—seems to underlie the effect, and participants exhibited a marked bias even when confronted with an otherwise attractive individual.

 

How to Cite: Swan, L.K. & Heesacker, M., (2012). Anti-Atheist Bias in the United States: Testing Two Critical Assumptions. Secularism and Nonreligion. 1, pp.32–42. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/snr.ac
606
Views
242
Downloads
14
Citations
Published on 22 Feb 2012.
Peer Reviewed

Downloads

  • PDF (EN)

    comments powered by Disqus