By Adela Cufe
email: cufeadela@yahoo.com
Keywords: religion, social conflict, reward,
in-group glorification, out-group stereotyping, intergroup processes
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Relevant Links
The present study looked at the effect of religion and reward on social conflict. Previous research has shown that competing groups use religious denomination as a means of intergroup demarcation thus setting a boundary between “us” and “them.” It was hypothesized that religion and reward would increase the gap of perceived differences between groups, therefore creating an opportune environment for conflict. Results revealed that the effects of religion and reward on group processes are present. In-group glorification and out-group stereotyping were significantly influenced by a combination of religion, reward, and win/lose condition. Stereotypical views were the strongest in the Religion x Win condition and lowest in the Religion x Lose condition, indicating that out-group stereotypes depend on whether the group perceives itself as the “winner” or “loser.” In-group Glorification x Win/Lose interaction indicated that glorification was higher among “winners”. Group cohesion was also influenced by religion and reward at a level approaching significance indicating a trend of group members’ tendency to get closer to each other as the result of the religious label and a common goal.
Many past and present conflicts
carry religious connotations. September 11th troubled many
of us and increased the salience of Islam in the minds of many Americans
and Westerners. Prejudices against Islam as a religion that sustains
violence revived after 9/11 (Liyakatali, 2004). Unfortunately, the
pairing of Islam with the criminal and terrorist actions of a particular
group of people has lead to adverse effects in regards to issues that pertain
to the Muslim world in general.
The division, caused by
the perception of differences between in-group and other, sets boundaries
between what people consider similar to them -- the in-group, and what
is dissimilar -- the out-group. According to Hogg and Hains (1996),
people define themselves in terms of self-inclusive social categories,
which create inter-group differentiation, stereotypic perception, and ethnocentrism
(Hogg and Hains, 1996; Hogg and Williams, 2000). These three elements
play a role in the development of conflictual relationships between groups
(Pruitt and Kim, 2003). Religion, which can be an integral part of
one’s identity, might be an important element along which people identify
themselves and others as either similar or dissimilar.
One of the questions raised about religious identity is whether it is related
to conflict between groups (social conflict). This study aims at
providing an answer to this question.
Religion plays an important
role in people’s lives – 84% of the world’s population are religious adherents
and base their value system on the respective religious teaching (Quilliam,
2000). Norms and values about what is right or wrong, good or bad,
are often acquired by people through religious instructions. As a
consequence, religion can provide the basis for social group formation.
A study of four western
religions by Shwartz and Huismans (1995) indicated that religions explicitly
promote tradition. This element of religion might appeal to groups
whose ethnic or national identity is threatened and are in need of group-assertion
and a sense of identity rooted in the past. Threat to the wellbeing
of the group promotes group cohesion. Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia,
in the republics of the former Soviet Union, in Palestine and Israel, and
Northern Ireland, all are examples of how different ethnic groups use religion
as their primary element of distinguishing and preserving their group identity.
In an analysis of the conflict
in the former Yugoslavia Sells (2003) observes that victims to-be were
selected on the basis of their religious affiliation: Catholicism was related
to Croats, Serb Orthodoxy to Serbians, and Islam was related to Bosnians
and other Slavic Muslims (a category called “Muslim” was created by the
regime of Milosevic in 1980 to denote all the other Muslim people regardless
of their ethnicity).
Being categorized as Christian
or Muslim might have increased the salience of a religious denomination
among different individuals and the way they perceived themselves, hence
leading to group cohesion. This supposition is derived from the findings
of Hogg and Turner (1987), according to whom the formation of the group
and the behavior of the group are caused by self-categorization in terms
of the salient social categorization (in this case-religion).
This indicates that categorization
per se has a causal role in group formation and group behavior (Hogg &
Turner, 1987). Therefore, classifying one’s group as belonging to
a certain category, in this instance to a given religion, is the first
and foremost step in the creation of an in-group. Hence, one would
expect that as awareness of threat to self and in-group increases, the
cultural aspects that set in- and out-group apart, are likely to be more
strongly emphasized by group members.
The existence of the in-group
influences the way individuals view themselves, members of their in-group,
and the others (the out-group). Thus, Sherif (1958) in his classic
experiment on group processes with boys, observed the creation of
derogatory stereotypes about the out-group, the avoidance of activities
involving the out-group, and a prevailing sense of glorification for their
in-group. Not only did the boys create stereotypes about the out-group,
but also when they came in contact with each other, name-calling and even
fights broke out (Sherif, 1958). Since the ethnocentric view of one’s
group seems to be unavoidable, then it is quite possible that people who
adhere to the same religion will maintain that their worldview, their customs,
and their group members are superior to other worldviews, other customs
and members of the out-group.
Various conflicts between
groups of different religions can be explained in part, in terms of the
attributions that people of different religions make about each other.
Religion in this case might give that extra categorical “incentive” that
in other cases might be harder to find, therefore religious adherents might
not need to be in each other’s presence for too long or engage in communal
activities to perceive each other as “one of a kind.” People from
the same religious background might perceive each other as similar in terms
of values that they adhere to, norms that they follow, thus shortening
the time otherwise needed to lead to group formation. The X religion
versus Y religion category will be salient in people’s minds and that might
be used as the common denominator among group members.
Support for this statement
is found in the experiment conducted by Turner, Brown, and Tajfel (1979)
where participants after indicating their preference for 12 pairs of abstract
paintings were placed into shape or color people groups. After completion
of a given task, participants were individually asked to distribute money
to both in and out-group. The findings indicated that even though
participants did not come into contact with each other, just being placed
into a given category was a sufficient reason to exhibit in-group favoritism
as indicated by greater sums of money distributed to the in-group.
Based on this rationale of “inherent group favoritism” it is expected that
placement in a given category will provide members of the group with a
sufficient basis for favoring group members.
In-group favoritism is
seen even in the attributions that group members make to explain past and
present behavior of in and out-group members. Research that studied
group attributions about the in-group’s past actions indicated that when
faced with a dark side in their national history (for example when the
German people were asked about the atrocities committed by the Nazis),
people made internal, dispositional attributions about the out-group, and
external, situational attributions about the in-group (Doosje & Branscombe,
2003). So, the Jewish people attributed more internal responsibility
to the Germans for the atrocities committed towards the Jews than the Germans
attributed to members of their own group.
This finding suggests the
existence of a self serving bias – the tendency to explain one’s mistakes
as situationally determined, while those of other’s as inherent tendencies
(Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, 2002) -- and has implications for explaining
further developments that occur in inter-group processes. For example,
the kind of attributions that are made may play a role in worsening the
relationship between groups, and ultimately escalating and/or maintaining
a conflict. If both groups involved in a conflict think that the
other party is inherently bad, as opposed to the in-group, which is considered
to be inherently good, then the chances for a peaceful resolution are not
high. This conclusion is based on the finding that as group identity
increases, the inter-group attributional bias becomes stronger (Doosje
& Branscombe, 2003). Hence, one would expect that for groups
assigned to a given category, such as a religion, their sense of superiority
would be stronger than that of another group which does not operate under
a commonly recognized label.
In a meta-analysis of different
studies which sought to answer the question about different beliefs that
lead to conflict, Eidelson and Eidelson (2003) concluded that one of the
beliefs responsible was the belief in the group’s superiority. Group
superiority encompasses beliefs of group members about their moral superiority,
special destiny, chosenness, and privilege (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003).
Therefore, superiority beliefs, as a social process, seem to be related
to the group members’ cognition about themselves. This is related
to Social Identity Theory (SIT), which tries to explain social processes
by looking at the cognitive categorizational constructs of individuals
(Hogg & Williams, 2000; Tajfel, 1969). According to SIT, people
are exposed to stereotypical information about in-group’s and out-group’s
prototypical similarities and differences (Hogg & Wiliams, 2000).
Hogg and Williams argue that the assimilated prototype from the in-group
is able to transform I into We, which is considered to be the collective
self or social identity.
It is social identity that
plays a very important role in social cohesion. Identifying with
one group rather than another is the basis for the alliances that take
place today in the political decisions of world leaders. For example,
there is a tradition in Great Britain to sustain the efforts and the actions
undertaken by the US government. It is true that both countries might
share the same interests or the same ideals, but the fact that both countries
share the same language and to a certain extent a religious identity, might
facilitate and enhance identification with each other. Similarly,
during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the Russians were against
a NATO intervention in that country, and part of this objection might have
stemmed from the identification of both Russians and Serbs as Orthodox
Slavs. Categorization from both groups as pertaining to the “Slavic
people” category, probably was at the heart of perceived similarities and,
hence, side-taking.
In laboratory settings,
one would expect that groups that have been assigned a religion will be
more cohesive because of the salience of the label among group members.
As mentioned earlier the religious label might give people one more element
on
which to hold onto while the group is competing for some scarce resource.
Therefore, if two religious groups are competing to gain access to resources,
the divide between these two groups might grow greater than the divide
between groups who do not have a religious label. In the present
study it is expected to find greater levels of cohesiveness and identification
among members of religious groups than among members of non-religious groups.
Religion, being a
highly salient element in people’s lives, plays an important role in the
relationships that people form with members of the out-group. A study
about the conflict in Croatia (Kunovich & Hodson, 1999) indicated that
war-related conflict directly increased in-group/out-group polarization
and ethnic intolerance, and indirectly increased religiosity. Their
findings suggest that conflict is not directly caused by religiosity but
rather property damage and violence affect religiosity through in-group/out-group
polarization Kunovich & Hodson, 1999). Therefore, one would expect
that the likelihood of individuals’ identification with the in-group in
religious terms would increase as the group loses a possible prize (a sort
of “possible property damage”) to the out-group. The
authors argue that even though “the religious affiliation is only one possible
boundary marker, it is highly salient and largely reliable in the countries
of the former Yugoslavia, as the overwhelming majority of the Croats are
Catholic and the overwhelming majority of the Serbs are Orthodox” (Kunovich
& Hodson, 1999).
Group identity and group
cohesiveness are important factors that contribute to conflict escalation.
According to Pruitt and Kim (2003), cohesiveness affects the behavior of
the group by increasing conformity to group norms through fear of ostracism,
and social pressure. Cohesiveness leads groups to be persistent in
their actions towards reaching their goals especially if they believe in
the righteousness of their cause; belief in a group’s righteousness is
an important element that not only leads to conflict escalation but also
contributes to conflict maintenance. Thus, one of the elements encountered
in the literature concerning intractable conflicts is the belief that the
group has been done an injustice (Coleman, 2003; Eidelson & Eidelson,
2003). This belief in one’s own group suffering unjustly at the hands
of another group goes hand in hand with the idea that the group not only
should mobilize, but also has the right to do so. Religious conflicts
have a very strong and pervasive element of righteousness in them.
For example, Islamic fundamentalists often use these transcendent righteousness
justifications (i.e. that they are doing it in the name of God) for their
crimes and killings.
Based on the literature on group processes reviewed above, it can be stated
that when faced with the existence of another group that strives to reach
the same goal (competition), group cohesiveness increases. Also,
group norms polarize and stereotypes and prejudice against the out-group
become more prevalent. Given what the literature tells us about the
relationship between group conflict and religion, it is therefore hypothesized
that as groups feel threatened of losing access to a resource, members
of the group will “cling” to their group’s label as a way of mobilization
of the group – hence increasing cohesiveness. This could be more
noticeable in religious than non-religious groups since in the former the
label is more easily accessible. Therefore, it is expected that religious
groups will be more cohesive and express higher levels of identification
than non-religious groups.
Furthermore, because of
this characteristic of “salience” coupled with the tendency of groups to
mobilize in the face of threat, it is hypothesized that religious members
who are threatened of not gaining access to resources, will be more cohesive
then members of religious groups whose resources are not threatened.
Whereas members that pertain to a non-religious and non-threatened group
will be the less cohesive, have lower prejudices against the other group
then participants assigned to non-religious but threatened group.
To summarize it is predicted that the ranking (from the highest to the
lowest) in cohesiveness, group identity, stereotyping, and prejudice, will
be as follows: 1) religion + reward; 2) religion + no reward 3) no
religion + reward; 4) no religion + no reward.
Participants
The participants were drawn
from the student pool of general psychology and biochemistry undergraduates
at a small Liberal Arts Catholic College in New Hampshire. Given
the difficulties presented with participant recruitment, five male participants
were recruited through networking. Eleven participants were male
and 25 were female; their mean age was 19 years old (range 18-22 years).
The participants drawn from the student pool were given two course credits
for participation. Nothing was given and/or promised to be given
to the participants recruited by networking, either before or after the
study.
Materials
Materials in this study
consisted of a jigsaw puzzle, one fictitious religious description (called
“The Fire” religion), a short neutral description, two Likert Scale type
questionnaires, a timing device, a camera, and three suspicion check items.
The puzzle was commercially
obtained by the researcher. It featured a picture of the DreamWorks
character Shrek 2 and it contained 100 pieces. The participants worked
in groups composed between two (n=2) to four (n=4) group members.
The timed solving of the puzzle was used to manipulate the reward condition
(win/lose) as explained in detail in the next section.
The description of the
religion included elements of creation and description of values and norms.
These three aspects (creation, values, and norms) were chosen because for
all religions these play an important role in the rudimentary understanding
of religion among believers (Quilliam, 2000; Wellman, Jr. & Tokuno,
2004). The administration of the religion description aimed at creating
some necessary grounds by which members of the group could draw information
which would enhance their sense of community among them, thus increasing
group identity. The following is the description of the religion
that the participants received:
The roots of “Fire” religion can be traced deep down in the history of the human race. Fire is the source of great blessings to our race. During the Ice Period it was fire that kept our ancestors alive and contributed to the continuity of life on our planet. Because of this, we adore fire as the only source and protector of life and consider life, especially human life, to be sacred. Since life is sacred then, engaging in life-taking practices is considered to be a great sin among “Fire” followers.The non-religious group received the neutral description below:
As she was walking down the street to go to pick up her daughter from school, Jane was thinking of the time when she was little and used to go over her grandmother’s on Sundays. All her cousins were there and she really enjoyed spending time and playing with them. It was quite unavoidable to be quiet in a place with so many kids, and she remembered how her grandmother, tired of all the “Sunday noise”, invented a “special game” to keep them quiet. It basically consisted of giving one extra cookie to the kid who didn’t yell while talking to the others.The questionnaires used were designed by the experimenter and had good face validity. They were designed to measure group cohesion, members’ identification with the in-group, in-group glorification and out-group stereotyping. To avoid carry over effects parallel forms of the questionnaires were used. This was accomplished by changing the wording of the questions, however the meaning was maintained. Listed below are the instructions given to the participants, together with a number of questions (for the complete list of questions see Appendix A and Appendix B):
On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=somewhat agree, 4=neutral, 5=somewhat disagree, 6=disagree, 7=strongly disagree, please indicate your level of approval with each statement by circling the appropriate number.
1. Members of my group and I have similar goals. (group cohesion)Sample questions for assessing the existence of any stereotypes and prejudice against the out-group included:
2. I consider myself to be similar to members of my own group. (identification with in-group)
1. Members of my group are better than members of the other group. (in-group glorification)The timing devise used to score the puzzle completion task was an Aquatech alarm stopwatch commercially provided by the experimenter. Also utilized in this research was a GPT Parker Vision video camera to record participant’s behavior during the puzzle completion task.
2. Members of the other group are less efficient. (stereotype).
Procedure
The study took place in
the waiting room of the laboratory of the psychology department in the
college. In the sign up sheet the experimenter had described
the study as “Group processes during problem solving activities”.
The same was verbally told to the other participants recruited by networking
by the researcher. Once the study started, all the participants,
depending on which group they were assigned to, were given the appropriate
study description. The descriptions were the same expect for the
independent variables (see Results section).
Here is the study description for the no-religion + no reward condition
(for the other descriptions see Appendix D):
The study that you are about to participate focuses on group processes during problem solving activities. You and members of your group will be given to solve a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle and your time will be recorded and then compared to that of another group similar to yours. However, before you begin solving the puzzle you will read a story. Then you will be asked to answer a questionnaire. After the questionnaire will be completed, you should solve the puzzle in group. When the puzzle is put together, the experimenter will compare your time with that of the other similar group, and the result will be announced. Please be advised that regardless of your time you will receive two credits. After the results are announced you will be administered another questionnaire. Upon completion please stay in your place and wait for the experimenter’s directions.In total there were four conditions – religion/reward; religion/no-reward; no religion/reward; no religion/no reward. The religious groups were the ones that were administered the religious description mentioned above, whereas the non-religious groups were administered the neutral story.
Out of the total number of participants, (N=36), 47% were in the reward condition, 53% in the no-reward condition, 53% were assigned to the religious groups whereas 47% to the no-religious groups. Fifty five percent of the participants were told that they won, while 44% were told that they lost. Suspicion checks indicated that all the participants were completely blind at the hypothesis of the study. A 2 (religion/no religion) x 2(reward, no reward) x 2 (win, lose) between subjects ANOVA was conducted for each of the dependent variables (see below).
Independent Variables
There were three independent
variables in this experiment: Religious affiliation (two levels: “Fire”
religion and no-religion), reward (two levels: reward and no-reward), and
win/lose condition.
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables
were: group cohesion, group identification, in-group glorification, and
out-group stereotyping as assessed through the items on the experimenter
generated questionnaire. The first three questions of the questionnaires
(see Appendix A and Appendix B) measured group cohesion, questions 4-6
measured identification with group members, questions 7-9 measured in-group
glorification, and the last three questions measured out-group stereotyping.
Items were averaged to create an overall index for each variable.
Internal consistency analyses for each measure for Questionnaire 1 were
as follows: a = .6087 for group cohesion, a= .8454 for identification with
group members, a = .7159 for in-group glorification, a = .8463 for the
out-group stereotyping. Whereas, internal consistency analyses for
Questionnaire 2 were: a = .7629 for group cohesion, a = .9023 for identification
with group members, a = .8231 for in-group glorification, a = .8406 for
the out-group stereotyping.
Table 1
Means of In-Group Cohesion in Reward x Religion
Conditions
Reward Religion Cohesion Mean Std. Error
Yes
Yes
Time 1
2.533
.208
Time 2
2.700
.387
Yes
No
Time 1
3.067
.275
Time 2
2.600
.513
No
Yes
Time 1
2.375
.221
Time 2
1.592
.411
No
No
Time 1
2.233
.208
Time 2
2.233
.387
Table 2
Means of Stereotypical Views of Out-Group
for Religion x Win/Lose Interaction
The Religion x Lose group
held the least stereotypical views towards the out-group. Their mean
score was around 4.4 indicating neutrality headed towards mild disagreement
(5=somewhat disagree) on out-group stereotypical views (see Table 2).
This does not lend support to the hypothesis that religion will lead to
more stereotypical views. The No Religion x Win group (see Table
2) also did not show much fluctuation in their views from the first to
the second time they answered the questionnaires (M=3.600 at time 1 and
3.667 at time 2). Moreover, the nature of their score indicates (3=somewhat
disagree, 4=neutral) that their score was heading toward neutrality i.e.
they did not hold strong stereotypical views. Also, the No Religion
x Lose group’s scores (see Table 2) does not indicate the presence of strong
stereotypes. In sum, the results obtained from the non-religious
groups are in partial accordance with the hypothesis and, hence do lend
some support to the statement that non-religious groups will exhibit less
stereotypical views towards the out-group.
For the Reward x Religion
x Win condition stereotypical views were strengthened from the first to
the second time the participants answered the questionnaires. The
Reward x No Religion x Win group and No Reward x No Religion x Lose group
seem to maintain almost similar levels of stereotypical views (see Table
3), thus not supporting the hypothesis that the Religion x Reward x Win
condition would maintain the highest level of stereotypical views.
Table 3
Means of Stereotypical Views in Reward x Religion
x Win/Lose Conditions
Table 4
Means of In-Group Glorification Views in the
Win/Lose Condition
The results of the present
study indicate that religion and reward play a role in group processes;
hence, supporting to some degree the hypothesis of the study. However,
their influence on groups’ perceptions of each other does not seem to be
that clear cut. It was hypothesized that being assigned to a religious
group would promote stronger ties between group members only by the virtue
of being assigned to a category (Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979).
As a result, it was reasoned that because of stronger ties, members of
religious group would maintain more stereotypes, favor more the in-group,
be more cohesive, and identify more with same group members than members
of non-religious groups. Initially, the Win/Lose conditions were
introduced to counterbalance each other. Thus, no prediction was
made to accommodate them.
The results indicated that
there was an interaction between in-group glorification and Win/Lose condition.
This shows that group’s self-awareness is based on the facts available
to its members. In other words, for a group to praise itself, some
sort of advantageous condition is needed. This finding, even though
simplistic in nature, has repercussions in conflict settings, because groups
can use this glorified self-perception as the foundation for out-group
derogation. Moreover, the glorified self-perception might be related
to the belief in group’s superiority thus leading to conflict (Eidelson
& Eidelson, 2003). Since in-group bias and favoritism are omnipresent
in group processes (Turner et al., 1979; Doosje & Branscombe, 2003),
then it might be helpful in pre-conflict or conflict situations to make
the parties aware of these phenomena; thus, aiming at fostering inter-group
understanding. However, this should be the scope of future research.
Identification with the
in-group was not significantly influenced by the independent variables;
hence, not lending support to the hypothesis that religion would provide
with salient elements that group members could use to identify with the
in-group. Nevertheless, this might have been due to the fact that
the religion was fictitious and assigned. Other studies should address
this by having groups composed of same religion participants compete against
other unidentified religious groups (to avoid any possible ethical dilemma
that might arise as the result of having participants exposed to situations
where their stereotypes are uncovered).
Another explanation as
to why identification with in-group was not significantly influenced by
the independent variables could reside in the fact that the short nature
of the encounter between group members might not have provided participants
with enough opportunity to think of each other as belonging to the same
group. The sessions lasted in general from 20-25 minutes, during
which time the participants did not have many exchanges among them.
Therefore, the failure to find support for the hypothesis might have been
a procedural defect. Future studies should include steps to overcome
such a problem by expanding interaction and interaction time between group
members. One way of achieving this would be by having group members
engage in a short conversation before the experiment.
The study sessions were
video taped and the participants’ behavior and verbal comments were analyzed;
however, the amount of data collected was very limited. For some
groups, the amount of verbal exchange among group members was limited to
planning on how to solve the puzzle. This again is an indication
of how the short period of time in the laboratory did not allow enough
time for the participants to feel comfortable. Moreover, the fact
that they were being video taped might have been another reason why not
many comments on the out-group were made, since perhaps participants might
have felt intimidated to voice their opinions in general and their stereotypes
in particular. Future research could control for this deficiency
by either allowing more time so that the participants are desensitized
by the presence of the camera or by using raters unknowingly to the participants.
The interaction between
Cohesion x Reward x Religion are indicative of a trend in increased cohesiveness
among members of religious groups. Group cohesion seems to be the
strongest in the Religious x No reward condition. It is not clear
how the absence of reward would make groups more cohesive, however for
this particular group it might have been the case that the presence of
religion was strong enough to yield to a cohesive group. Nevertheless,
the fact that cohesion is stronger among members of religious groups demonstrates,
as it was hypothesized, that religion might play a role in bringing members
of a group or a community together, as in the case of Bosnia-Hercegovina
where ethnic Bosnians started to think of themselves and other members
of their ethnic group as “Muslims” during the conflict in Yugoslavia (Herzfeld,
2003).
Even though religion can
be a catalyst for group cohesion, in time other factors might come to influence
the bond between group members. In the present study, cohesion levels
for Religion x Reward and No Religion x Reward groups were almost the same
the second time the groups answered the questionnaire. For the No
Religion x Reward groups, the increase in cohesion from the first to the
second time the groups answered the questionnaire, might speak to a trend
of a possible influence that reward might have on cohesion when groups
strive towards a common goal (in this case to gain access to two course
credits) (Sherif, 1958). In sum, the results might indicate
that even though religion does play a role in group cohesiveness, so does
reward – it only takes longer.
This finding seems to be
in line with the rationale that religion, which is highly salient in people’s
minds, provides with “instant incentives” for creating the “us” versus
“them” categories. This finding, however, also indicates a trend
which shows a side of group processes that mature in time and yield the
same end results (i.e. inter-group tension). In practice this could
mean that the possibility of conflict might be greater between religious
groups however, it also warns us that when it comes to conflict studies,
nothing can be certain and/or predictable -- other factors could be influencing
group processes.
One has to be cautious
when considering these results, not only because of the limitations mentioned
earlier but also because of the limitations inherited in laboratory settings.
People’s reactions in the laboratory might be very different from those
they have in everyday life. Moreover, other influences, such as those
from media, political, and/or religious leaders, do not have access in
the laboratory; hence, the results obtained in this manner might not speak
the entire truth.
The fact that the most
stereotypical views were found in the Religion x Win condition shows that
in certain circumstances these groups might be more prone to conflict than
other groups. Stereotypical views for the out-group were found to
be influenced by the interaction of Reward x Religion x Win/Lose condition,
indicating that the creation of stereotypes for the out-group comes as
the result of inherited qualities of the group (such as religion) and other
situational factors (such as reward).
Members of the No Reward
x Religion x Win condition expressed more stereotypical views for the out-group.
Again, being member of a religious group and winning makes group members
view the out-group as inferior; therefore, the dehumanization of the out-group
and the propensity to aggress might increase (Eidelson & Eidelson,
2003). However, this result should be taken with some reserve, because
the strikingly strong score attained the second time the group answered
the questionnaire might have been, more than anything, a reflection of
group members’ characteristics given that their initial score also indicated
the existence of stereotypical views. Another possible explanation
is related to the fact that given the small number of participants in the
group, an extreme score could have overshadowed and out-balanced other
milder scores.
Of importance were the
findings that stereotypical views were the lowest in the Religion x Lose
condition. This result is startling at first, because it is not in
accordance with the hypothesis, which predicted that religious groups would
maintain the highest levels of stereotypical views. Even though all
the explanations offered in earlier cases as reasons why some results might
not confirm to the hypothesis, apply here, the result obtained in this
case might have another explanation.
Religion, as it was mentioned,
provides people with moral teachings (Quilliam, 2000). It could have
been possible that being placed in a religious group, would have reminded
the participants of their own religion and the values of tolerance that
they hold, hence leading to less stereotypical views (Reed & Aquino,
2003). For these individuals, as Reed and Aquino (2003) observe,
moral identity (self-regulating construct that connects personal to social
identity), might have high self-importance, thus they could have redefined
the boundaries of their in-group. Future research should control
for the participants’ level of moral identity, in order to gain a better
grasp of the underlying influence that religion might have on inter-group
relations.
Regardless of its limitations
the study furthers the understanding of conflict and how it relates to
religion and resource scarcity. The findings warn of the possible
impact that religion and resource scarcity might have on increasing inter-group
tensions. They suggest one more time the need to look even further
and in more detail into this issue of a highly complicated character.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R.
M. (2002). Social Psychology (4th edition). Upper Saddle
River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics
of protracted, intractable conflict: Toward the
development of a metaframework-I.
Peace
and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 9, 1-37.
Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003).
Attribution for the negative historical actions of a group. European
Journal of Social Psychology,
33, 235-248.
Eidelson, R. J. & Eidelson, J. I. (2003).
Dangerous ideas: Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict.
American Psychologist,
58, 182-192.
Herzfeld, N. (2003). Open wounds. Christian Century, 120, 8-11.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996).
Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of
group identification and
social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality
and
Social Psychology, 70,
295-309.
Hogg, M A. & Turner, J. C. (1987).
Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the
salience of social categories.
British
Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325-340.
Hogg, M. A., & Williams, K. D. (2000).
From I to We: Social identity and the collective
self. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 81-97.
Kunovich, R. M. & Hodson, R. (1999).
Conflict, religious identity, and ethnic
intolerance in Croatia.
Social
Forces, 78, 643-669.
Liyakatali, T. (2004). From conversion
to conversation: Interfaith Dialogue in Post 9-11
America. Muslim
World, 94 (3), 343-355.
Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (2003). Social
conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education:
New York, NY.
Reed, A. II. & Aquino, K. F. (2003).
Moral identity and the expanding moral regard
toward the out-groups.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1270-
-1286.
Schwartz, S. & Spike, H. (1995).
Value priorities and religiosity in four western
religions. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88-107.
Sells, M. (2003). Crosses of blood: Sacred
space, religion, and violence in Bosnia-
Hercegovina. Sociology
of Religion, 64, 309-331.
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals
in the reduction of intergroup conflict. The
American Journal of
Sociology, 63, 349- 356.
Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79-97.
Turner, J.C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H.
(1979). Social comparison and group interest in
ingroup favouritism. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187-204.
Quilliam, N. (2000). Religion and culture.
International Conference on Global Ethos,
panel 7: Religion,Gender,
and Culture. Retrieved October, 2004 from
http://vulab.ias.unu.edu/GlobalEthos/papers/quilliam.html
Appendix AQuestionnaire 1
On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=somewhat agree, 4=neutral, 5=somewhat disagree, 6=disagree, 7=strongly disagree, please indicate your level of approval with each statement by circling the appropriate number.
1. I think that members of my group and I share
same viewpoint on the other group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
2. Members of my group and I have similar
goals.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
3. Members of my group and I work together
to benefit our group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
4. I share many values with my group member.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
5. I consider myself to be similar to members
of my own group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
6. I identify with other members in my group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
7. My group is more capable than the other
group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
8. Overall, my group is better at performing
tasks than the other group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
9.
My group is composed of intelligent people.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
10. The other group is not as good as my group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
11. Members of the other group are not as
smart as members of my group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
12. Members
of the other group are clumsy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
Questionnaire 2
On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=somewhat agree, 4=neutral, 5=somewhat disagree, 6=disagree, 7=strongly disagree, please indicate your level of approval with each statement by circling the appropriate number.
1. My opinion toward the other group and my
group members’ opinions are similar.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
2. My group and I strive to reach the same
ends.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
3. Members of my group collaborate to attain
their objectives.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
4. My group and I maintain similar values.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
5. There are commonalities between members
of my group and myself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
6. I see myself as having many characteristics
in common with the members of my own group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
7. Members of my group are more gifted than
members of the other group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
8. I think my group can outperform the other
group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
9. All my group members are smart.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
10. Members of my group are better than members
of the other group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
11. The other group is not as intelligent
as my group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
12. Members of the other group are less efficient.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
strongly agree
strongly disagree
Debriefing Statement
In our time we have witnessed
and are still witnessing numerous conflicts which are colored by religious
connotations. September 11th is the one that American people think
of the most, because of its recency but most importantly because it happened
on American soil. Others include the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
that in Northern Ireland, and the one between Israel and Palestine, just
to name a few. Because of the destructiveness and pain that conflict
causes people all around the world, especially conflict between different
religious groups, the researcher was interested in finding out the extent
to which religious identity influences social conflict. Studies have indicated
that religion is an important of people’s identity (Sells, 2003; Rotar,
2002).
In this study, some of
you were randomly assigned to a fictitious religious group and were given
a written description of a “religion” (a made up religion that included
a myth of creation and a description of some cardinal values such as “life
is sacred” in order to mimic the structure of the dominant Western religions)
to which you and members of your group belonged -- this was the experimental
condition. Subjects in the control condition were instead given to
read a newspaper article on some local activity.
The other manipulated variable
was level of reward. Hence, some of you were told that whether you
received one or three credits depended on whether your timing in solving
the puzzle was better or worse than the other group’s – this was the reward
condition. Subjects in the equal-reward condition were told that
they would receive three credits for participating in the study.
To create a laboratory
situation as close as possible to a real life situation, the true purpose
of the study was not revealed until now. The deception involved was
not only unavoidable in trying to answer the preliminary question regarding
religion and social conflict but also necessary in controlling for confounding
variables (such as “the good participant effect”) which would yield unreliable
findings. Hence, in an effort to maintain the scientific integrity
of this study, your most kind collaboration is asked by keeping the procedures
and the purpose of it a secret until the end of October, by which time
all the data will have been collected.
In addition, I would like
to assure you that the answers that you provided in no way reflect on you
as a person, since your response is but one among the myriad of possible
reactions to the situation. Moreover, your answers will be kept in
aggregate (group) form only, hence your anonymity is assured.
If you have any questions regarding the study
or the method and procedures used please feel free to contact me at P.O.
Box 0407.
Study Descriptions
Religion + No Reward
The study that you are about to participate
focuses on group processes during problem solving activities. You
and the other participants in the room are assigned to the same religion.
You and members of your religious group will be given to solve a 100-piece
jigsaw puzzle and your time will be recorded and then compared to that
of another religious group similar to yours. However, before you
begin solving the puzzle you will read the religion’s description.
Then you will be asked to answer a questionnaire. After the questionnaire
will be completed, you should solve the puzzle in group. When the
puzzle is put together, the experimenter will compare your time with that
of the other religious group, and the result will be announced.
Please be advised that regardless of your time you will receive two credits.
After the results are announced you will be administered another questionnaire.
Upon completion please stay in your place and wait for the experimenter’s
directions.
No religion + Reward
The study that you are about to participate
focuses on group processes during problem solving activities. You
and the other participants in the room are assigned to the same group.
You and members of your group will be given to solve a 100-piece jigsaw
puzzle and your time will be recorded and then compared to that of another
group similar to yours. However, before you begin solving the puzzle
you will read a story. Then you will be asked to answer a questionnaire.
After the questionnaire will be completed, you should solve the puzzle
in group. When the puzzle is put together, the experimenter will
compare your time with that of the other group, and the result will be
announced. Please be advised that depending on your timing you will
receive either two credits (if your timing is better than the other group’s)
or one credit (if your timing is worse than that of the other group).
After the results are announced you will be administered another questionnaire.
Upon completion please stay in your place and wait for the experimenter’s
directions.
Religion + Reward
The study that you are about to participate
focuses on group processes during problem solving activities. You
and the other participants in the room are assigned to the same religion.
You and members of your religious group will be given to solve a 100-piece
jigsaw puzzle and your time will be recorded and then compared to that
of another religious group similar to yours. However, before you
begin solving the puzzle you will read the religion’s description.
Then you will be asked to answer a questionnaire. After the questionnaire
will be completed, you should solve the puzzle in group. When the
puzzle is put together, the experimenter will compare your time with that
of the other religious group’s, and the result will be announced.
Please be advised that depending on your timing you will receive either
two credits (if your timing is better than the other religious group’s)
or one credit (if your timing is worse than that of the other religious
group’s). After the results are announced you will be administered
another questionnaire. Upon completion please stay in your place
and wait for the experimenter’s directions.
Informed Consent Form
INFORMED CONSENT AND RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AT SAINT ANSELM COLLEGE
All psychological research at Saint Anselm
College is conducted according to strict ethical principals outlined by
the American Psychological Association and is in full compliance with Federal
law. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, specifies
that informed consent must be given prior to research studies, that is,
"...the knowing consent of an individual or his legally authorized representative
so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue
inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form
of constraint or coercion.’
Simply put, this means when you participate
in any research study, you will be given a clear explanation of the procedures
involved. You may ask for clarification either before or during the procedure,
and you may terminate the procedures at any time.
Some of the procedures used in a particular
research study may include the use of media devices such as video and/or
audio recording. Any use of these devices will be fully disclosed at the
conclusion of your participation. You will be given the opportunity to
revoke the use of this recording at the conclusion of your participation
if you so choose. It should be understood that any recordings made will
be used for research purposes
After having carefully read and considered
the foregoing, I consent to participate in research activities according
to the terms heretofore enumerated. My signature indicates that I understand
the instructions of this study as they have been read to or read by me.
Date _________________ Signature__________________________
Class/Student I.D. # ________________ Other_____________
Post-Experimental Questionnaire
Please answer to the following questions and
circle the answer when necessary:
1) What did you think that the study
was about?
2) Did the story have to do with anything other than what the experimenter told you it had to do?
Please circle: YES NO
If YES what?
3) Did this affect your behavior in any way?
United States
Institute of Peace
Center
for the Study of Religion and Conflict
Center
for Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict
The
Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution