Patterns and Personality Correlates of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Christians and Muslims

Patterns and Personality Correlates of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Christians and Muslims WADE C. ROWATT LEWIS M. FRANKLIN MARLA COTTON We explored implicit and explicit attitudes toward Muslims and Christians within a predominantly Christian sample in the United States. Implicit attitudes were assessed with the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a computer program that recorded reaction times as participants categorized names (of Christians and Muslims) and adjectives (pleasant or unpleasant). Participants also completed self-report measures of attitudes toward Christians and Muslims, and some personality constructs known to correlate with ethnocentrism (i.e., right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, impression management, religious fundamentalism, intrinsic-extrinsic-quest religious orientations). Consistent with social identity theory, participants self-reported attitudes toward Christians were more positive than their self-reported attitudes toward Muslims. Participants also displayed moderate implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims. This IAT effect could also be interpreted as implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians. A slight positive correlation between implicit and explicit attitudes was found. As self-reported anti-arab racism, social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and religious fundamentalism increased, self-reported attitudes toward Muslims became more negative. The same personality variables were associated with more positive attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims on the self-report level, but not the implicit level. INTRODUCTION According to social identity theory (Hogg 2003; Tajfel 1982), identification with a social group often produces noticeable in-group/out-group biases (e.g., more favorable evaluations of one s in-group relative to an out-group and less favorable evaluations of an out-group relative to an in-group). In this study, we assessed implicit and explicit evaluations of two religious groups, Christian and Muslim, within a predominantly Christian sample in the United States. We also examined whether some religious and social-personality constructs known to correlate with ethnocentrism and prejudice such as social dominance, right-wing authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, religious motivations, and social desirability correlate with implicit and explicit measures of attitudes toward Christians and Muslims. A better understanding of the social-personality correlates of these attitudes might help partially explain the extensive range of peaceful and turbulent Christian-Muslim encounters throughout history (see Goddard 2000) and could contribute to the improvement of some future Christian-Muslim relations. SOME PROBABLE INFLUENCES ON CHRISTIANS ATTITUDES TOWARD MUSLIMS Although beyond the scope of this investigation, it is important to acknowledge that other dynamics beyond personality (e.g., social, political, economic, etc.) influence Christian-Muslim Wade C. Rowatt is Associate Professor in Psychology and Neuroscience at Baylor University, One Bear Place #97334, Waco, TX 76798. E-mail: Wade Rowatt@Baylor.edu Lewis Franklin is a candidate for the Master of Divinity Degree at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. E-mail: lewis@franklin.org Marla Cotton was an undergraduate psychology major at Baylor University. E-mail: marla cotton@yahoo.com Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2005) 44(1):29 43

30 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION attitudes and encounters (Goddard 2000). A history of positive social encounters with a Muslim in one s community, for example, could lead to a general positive evaluation of Muslims as a group (Goddard 2000). Consumption of moderate anti-muslim bias in the U.S. news media over time (Madani 2000), on the other hand, could contribute to the development of ethnic prejudices (see also Martin, Grande, and Crabb 2004). It is also important to acknowledge that several factors likely operate at different levels of the person and situation across time to influence attitude formation (e.g., biological, psychological, personality, social, cultural; see Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Possible person-by-situation statistical interactions would further complicate the prediction of these attitudes. Instead of trying to identify and measure each potential influence on attitudes toward Christians or Muslims at these different levels of analysis across time, we opted for a more narrow empirical approach. That is, after reviewing the existing literature to identify some known personality constructs and religious dimensions that correlated with ethnic prejudices, we used those variables as predictors of explicit and implicit attitudes toward Christians and Muslims at one point in time. DEFINING IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ATTITUDES Before reviewing some personality correlates of prejudice, it is necessary to differentiate between two levels of psychological attitudes. Explicit attitudes are expressed evaluative reactions that operate on a more conscious level and are traditionally measured with multi-item self-report scales (Himmelfarb 1993). Implicit attitudes, in contrast, are relatively automatic evaluations that are assumed to operate largely outside of conscious awareness (see Banaji, Lemm, and Carpenter 2001). Implicit attitudes can be inferred from reaction times to make implicit associations (see Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998), from reaction times to categorize items after certain evaluative primes (see Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park 1997), from unobtrusive behavioral measures (see Crosby, Bromley, and Saxe 1980; Franco and Maass 1999), and in other ways (see Fazio and Olson 2003). As the following review indicates, very little research exists on personality and religious correlates of implicit attitudes toward social groups. SOME KNOWN PERSONALITY-LEVEL PREDICTORS OF PREJUDICE Some of the most frequently studied personality-level correlates of ethnocentrism and prejudice include religious orientations (intrinsic, extrinsic, quest; see Batson et al. 2001; Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993; Donahue 1985; Herek 1987), noncreedal religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992; Hunsberger 1995, 1996; Laythe et al. 2002; Laythe and Kirkpatrick 2001; Rowatt and Franklin 2004), Christian orthodoxy (Hunsberger 1989; Kirkpatrick 1993; Laythe et al. 2002; Rowatt and Franklin 2004), and social dominance orientation (Heaven and St. Quintin 2003; Pratto et al. 1994). Intrinsic religious orientation religious activity as an end in and of itself usually correlates negatively with self-reported ethnic prejudice; whereas, extrinsic religious orientation religious activity as a means to other personal or social ends usually correlates positively with self-reported ethnic prejudice (see Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993; Donahue 1985). Quest orientation usually correlates negatively with overt and covert measures of prejudice (Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993). When racial prejudice was measured indirectly as the discrepancy between preference to be interviewed by a white or black interviewer, intrinsic religious orientation was not significantly correlated with racial prejudice (Batson, Naifeh, and Pate 1978). An experiment in which a more indirect measure of prejudice was used choosing to sit by a black or white person revealed similar patterns (Batson et al. 1986). As such, the intrinsic component of religiosity could be more directly related to the need to appear unprejudiced than to being unprejudiced.

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS 31 Noncreedal religious fundamentalism usually correlates positively with self-reported prejudices (Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992; Laythe et al. 2002; Wylie and Forest 1992). However, religious fundamentalism correlates strongly with right-wing authoritarianism and Christian orthodoxy,so some of the variation in prejudice attributed to religious fundamentalism could be due to authoritarianism or orthodox beliefs. For example, in a recent study in which self-reported religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and Christian orthodoxy were intercorrelated (rs > 0.50), religious fundamentalism did not account for unique variation in implicit racial prejudice (Rowatt and Franklin 2004). However, right-wing authoritarianism was positively correlated with implicit racial prejudice, and Christian orthodoxy was negatively correlated with implicit racial prejudice when religious fundamentalism and social desirability were simultaneously controlled (Rowatt and Franklin 2004). Laythe et al. (2002) documented a very similar pattern when predicting self-reported racial prejudice. Previous research also confirms that religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism are consistent correlates of negative attitudes toward women and homosexuals (Hunsberger 1996; Hunsberger, Owusu, and Duck 1999; Rowatt et al. 2004). Social dominance orientation (SDO) is another construct that accounts for variation in a variety of social attitudes and prejudices, but has not been administered in many studies of religion and prejudice. By definition, people who score high on SDO desire one s in-group to dominate and be superior to out-groups (Pratto et al. 1994). SDO correlates negatively with pro-social dimensions of personality (e.g., concern for others, communality, tolerance, altruism), negatively with attitudes toward a variety of policies (e.g., social programs, racial, women s rights, gay and lesbian rights, environmental programs), positively with several conservative ideologies (e.g., antiblack racism, nationalism, sexism, patriotism, cultural elitism, political-economic conservatism), and minimally with Protestant work ethic (Pratto et al. 1994). SDO correlates positively with anti- Asian and anti-aboriginal attitudes (Heaven and St. Quintin 2003), as well as anti-arab racism and attitudes toward the 1991 Iraq War (Pratto et al. 1994). Pratto and Shih (2000) examined whether persons with high and low SDO make different implicit in-group/out-group evaluations. High-SDO persons displayed implicit group prejudice only when in-group context was salient (i.e., displayed faster evaluation times to decide if a word was bad when out-group was primed than when in-group was primed and displayed slower evaluation times to decide if a word was good when out-group was primed than when in-group was primed); however, when social context was not made salient, high- and low-sdo persons did not differ in evaluation time to categorize good and bad adjectives when primed with an in-group word (i.e., our) or out-group word (i.e., them). Consistent with Pratto s research, we expect to find that SDO correlates with self-reported prejudice, but not implicit prejudice (because social context will not be made salient in this study). Although sometimes overlooked, socially desirable responding is an important variable to take into account when studying potentially sensitive self-report evaluations. Self-presentational concerns could lead a person to report more positive attitudes or personality qualities than are truly held. We statistically controlled for socially desirable responding in some analyses. We also selected a measure of implicit attitudes (the Implicit Association Test; IAT) that is particularly resistant to faking (see Banse, Seise, and Zerbes 2001) and used the conventional IAT scoring method to omit out-of-range responders (see Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998). THE IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST Several researchers have developed IATs to study implicit evaluations of the self relative to various groups (Cunningham, Nezlek, and Banaji 2004; Devos and Banaji 2003; Nosek, Banaji, and Greenwald 2002). In general, IATs assess the strength of associations between concepts by timing how long it takes a person to sort pleasant and unpleasant words along with symbols that

32 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION represent two distinct groups (e.g., flower-insect, in-group/out-group; see Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998; Greenwald et al. 2002; Greenwald and Nosek 2001). In the critical trials, categories into which people sort words are combined to be more congruent (e.g., in-group+pleasant; out-group+unpleasant) or incongruent (e.g., in-group+unpleasant; out-group+pleasant) with ingroup participants existing attitudes. An important underlying assumption of the IAT is that more closely related concepts and attributes (e.g., in-group and good; out-group and bad) are more quickly processed than less related concepts and attributes (e.g., in-group and bad; outgroup and good). In other words, the faster a person correctly sorts words into a combined category, the stronger the implicit association between concepts. An implicit prejudice exists when a person more quickly associates the out-group with unpleasant terms than with pleasant terms (relative to the in-group). With regard to implicit associations based on ethnicity, for example, most white people take significantly longer to sort words and faces into incongruent categories for them (e.g., white+unpleasant; black+pleasant) than into congruent categories for them (e.g., white+pleasant; black+unpleasant), a reliable pattern referred to as the race IAT effect (Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998). We selected the IAT to measure implicit attitudes toward Muslims relative to Christians because IATs are internally consistent (Banse, Seise, and Zerbes 2001), temporally reliable (Cunningham, Preacher, and Banaji 2001), valid (Devine 2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, and Beach 2001; Gawronski 2002; Greenwald and Nosek 2001; Nosek, Greenwald, and Banaji 2004), and correlated with some relevant behaviors (see Fazio and Olson 2003). For example, implicit shyness (measure with an IAT) uniquely predicted spontaneous shy behavior (Asendorpf, Banse, and Mücke 2002). Increases in white college students implicit racial prejudice (measured with an IAT) were associated with more negative behavioral interactions with a black research assistant than with a white research assistant (e.g., less speaking time, less smiling, more speech errors, more speech hesitation; McConnell and Leibold 2001). IMPLICIT ATTITUDES TOWARD SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS GROUPS In one of the first studies of implicit attitudes between members of religious groups, Rudman et al. (1999) found reliable evidence of implicit intergroup prejudice based on Christian and Jewish religious ethnicity. Christian persons more quickly sorted names (of Christian and Jewish persons) and adjectives (unpleasant or pleasant) when the sorting categories were congruent for them (Christian+pleasant; Jewish+unpleasant) than when the sorting categories were incongruent for them (Christian+unpleasant; Jewish+pleasant). Jewish persons more quickly sorted names and adjectives when the sorting categories were congruent for them (Jewish+pleasant; Christian+unpleasant) than when the sorting categories were incongruent for them (Jewish+unpleasant; Christian+pleasant). More recently it was found that college students who watched more media coverage of the military conflict with Iraq displayed more implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians (Martin, Grande, and Crabb 2004). OVERVIEW AND PREDICTED PATTERNS The primary purposes of this study were to assess implicit and explicit attitudes toward Christians and Muslims and to examine whether known personality correlates of ethnocentrism and prejudice (e.g., authoritarianism, SDO, religious fundamentalism) account for variation in these attitudes. Toward these ends, we developed a Christian-Muslim IAT and administered it along with self-report measures of attitudes toward Christians and Muslims and some other social-personality constructs known to correlate with ethnocentrism. Given most humans tendencies to identify with an in-group, to favorably evaluate in-group members, and to denigrate out-group members (Hogg 2003; Tajfel 1982), we expected participants in this sample (comprised mostly of Christians) to express positive attitudes toward

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS 33 Christians and neutral or slightly negative attitudes toward Muslims. We expected Christian persons to have slight to moderate implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians (i.e., increased response latencies when sorting words into categories that are more incongruent Muslim+pleasant; Christian+unpleasant than when sorting words into categories that are more congruent Muslim+unpleasant; Christian+pleasant). This pattern, if present, will also be interpreted as implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims. We expected self-report measures of religiosity (e.g., intrinsic, religious fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy), right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance to correlate negatively with self-reported attitudes toward Muslims and with preference for Christians relative to Muslims. Because many non-muslim Americans associate being Muslim with being Arab (Slade 1981), we predict that anti-arab racism will correlate negatively with self-reported positive attitudes toward Muslims. METHOD Participants The initial sample comprised students (138 women; 28 men; M age = 19.55 yrs., SD = 2.60) at a private university in the southwestern United States who participated in exchange for extra credit in a psychology course during the Fall 2002 or Spring 2003 semesters. Whereas such a small number of Muslim (n = 5), Hindu (n = 2), Buddhist (n = 1), and Jewish (n = 0) persons elected to participate, similar to Slade (1981), we restricted our sample to participants who indicated their religious affiliation to be Protestant (n = 93, 61.2 percent), Catholic (n = 25, 16.4 percent), or Other (n = 34, 22.4 percent). The final sample (128 women; 24 men) on which the remaining analyses were based was fairly diverse ethnically: 67 percent European American, 12 percent African American, 10.5 percent Hispanic, 6.5 percent Asian Pacific Islander, 1 percent American Indian, and 3 percent selected other as their ethnicity. We did not ask participants to indicate their specific belief in God (or Allah, etc.); however, we did ask participants two more general questions: To what extent do you consider yourself to be a religious person? and To what extent do you consider yourself to be a spiritual person? A majority of participants reported being religious (33.5 percent very religious, 41 percent moderately religious, 20.5 percent slightly religious, 5 percent not religious) and a majority indicated that they were spiritual (45 percent very spiritual, 39 percent moderately spiritual, 13 percent slightly spiritual, 3 percent not spiritual). Procedure The Christian-Muslim Implicit Association Test A Microsoft Windows-based software program (FIAT 2.3; Farnham 1998) was used to measure implicit Christian-Muslim attitudes (see also Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998; Rudman et al. 1999). To complete this IAT, each participant sat at a computer terminal and read instructions on the monitor. Participants were instructed to press the a key (on the left of a standard keyboard) if the name or adjective that appeared on the screen fit into the category on the left of the screen and the 5 key (on the right number pad) if the name or adjective fit into the category shown on the right of the screen. After reading the instructions, each participant practiced categorizing the names and adjectives that appeared in a white rectangle in the middle of a light gray box on the screen. The following stimulus names and words were used. Judeo-Christian names: Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim, Savior, Christ, Jesus, El Shaddai, Messiah, Immanuel, Adonai. Muslim names: Allah, Rahmaan, Quddoos, Salaam, Mumin, Muhaimin, Aziz, Jabbaar, Mutakabbir, Khaaliq. Pleasant words: pleasure, love, smart, joy, happy, wonderful, laughter, peace, luck, honor, gift, healthy, miracle, kind, hope, cheerful, fortune, moral. Unpleasant words: horrible,

34 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION awful, failure, nasty, agony, evil, war, terrible, poison, grief, disaster, hatred, evil, bomb, filth, accident, sorrow, misery. We decided to use Muslim and Christian names that appear in the Koran and the Bible instead of pictures of Muslim and Christian faces to avoid ethnicity confounds (e.g., pictures of Arab Muslims would confound ethnicity and religion) and because religious affiliation is not usually discernible from facial features. A total of seven blocks of trials were conducted with each participant. Blocks 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 were practice blocks with 20 trials per block. Reaction times were not recorded during practice blocks. Two data-collection blocks, with 40 trials per block, were conducted with each participant (Blocks 4 and 7). In the critical trials of this computerized test, reaction times were recorded as participants sorted words representing the four concepts (Christian, Muslim, unpleasant, and pleasant) into just two response categories (e.g., Incongruent condition: Muslim+pleasant; Christian+unpleasant; Congruent condition: Christian+pleasant, Muslim+unpleasant). For each trial in the test blocks, latency was recorded until the participant made a correct response. During practice and data-collection blocks, items from each category pair were selected randomly and without replacement so that all items were used only once before any items were reused. Each stimulus item was displayed until a correct response was made. The next stimulus item followed after a 150-ms intertrial interval. During data-collection blocks, the computer recorded elapsed time between the presentation of each stimulus word and occurrence of the correct keyboard response. As mentioned, IAT data for analyses were obtained from data-collection Blocks 4 and 7 (i.e., the congruent and incongruent conditions). Consistent with data-reduction and data-cleaning procedures described by Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998), (a) the first two trials of each data-collection block were dropped because of their typically lengthened latencies, (b) data from participants with greater than 25 percent error rates for trials 4 and 7 were omitted before initial analyses were conducted (n = 8), (c) latencies less than 300 ms were recoded to 300 ms and latencies greater than 3,000 ms were recoded to 3,000 ms, and (d) a logarithm transformation was used to normalize the distribution of latencies. The Christian-Muslim IAT effect was computed by subtracting the mean log-latency to categorize terms in the congruent condition from the mean log-latency to categorize terms in the incongruent condition. A positive sample mean for the Christian-Muslim IAT effect (i.e., arithmetic mean > 0) would be evidence of implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims or implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians. Measures of Social-Personality Dimensions Each participant also completed the following self-report measures. Participants total scores on each scale were divided by the number of items on the scale to facilitate comparison with other samples. 1. The Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992) measures the belief that there is one set of religious teachings that clearly contains the fundamental, basic, intrinsic, essential, inerrant truth about human and deity; that this essential truth is fundamentally opposed by forces of evil which must be vigorously fought; that this truth must be followed today according to the fundamental, unchangeable practices of the past; and that those who believe and follow these teachings have a special relationship with the deity. (Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992:118) Each participant was instructed to indicate degree of agreement with each item (1 = very strongly disagree; 9 = very strongly agree; e.g., There is no body of teachings, or set of scriptures, which is completely without error ). 2. The Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (see Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992) taps selfreported authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism (1 = very

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS 35 strongly disagree; 9 = very strongly agree; e.g., Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fibers and traditional beliefs ). 3. The Christian Orthodoxy Scale Short Form (Hunsberger 1989) includes six items that assess the degree to which a person accepts Christian beliefs (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree; e.g., Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God ). 4. The Attitudes Toward Christianity Scale (Francis and Stubbs 1987) includes 24 items that assess perceptions of Christian behaviors (e.g., I want to love Jesus ; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). We selected this scale because it was the most parallel existing measure to the IAT we could find (e.g., both measures include items about Jesus). Higher scores on this measure will be interpreted as more positive attitude toward Christians as a religious group. 5. The Attitudes Toward Muslims Scale (Altareb 1997) contains 25 items that tap five principal components (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree): Positive Feelings about Muslims (e.g., Muslims are friendly people ), Muslims as Separate or Other (e.g., I would support a measure deporting Muslims from America (reverse-keyed)), Restriction of Personal Choice/Freedom (e.g., Muslims are strict (reverse-keyed)), Fear of Muslims (e.g., Muslims should be feared (reverse-keyed)), Dissimilarity of Muslims (e.g., The Muslim religion is too strange for me to understand (reverse-keyed)). Higher scores on this measure will be interpreted as more positive attitude toward Muslims as a religious group. 6. The Anti-Arab Racism Scale (Pratto et al. 1994) contains five items about which people rate degree of positive or negative feeling (1 = very negative; 7 = very positive; e.g., Most of the terrorists in the world today are Arabs ). 7. The Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto et al. 1994) contains 16 items that tap the degree to which a person desires that his or her in-group dominate and be superior to outgroups. Participants rate their feeling toward each item using a seven-point scale (1 = very negative; 7 = very positive; e.g., In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups ). 8. Measures of Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Quest religious orientations (Allport and Ross 1967; Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993) were administered to assess religious thoughts and behaviors as purposeful ends (intrinsic; 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), religious activities as a means to other personal or social ends (extrinsic; 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), and religious doubting, openness to religious change, and existential questioning (quest; 1 = very strongly disagree; 9 = very strongly agree). We elected not to report analyses with the social or personal components of extrinsic religious orientation because those variables internal consistencies were well below accepted standards (i.e., αs < 0.70). 9. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus and Reid 1991) measures impression management with 20 items (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree; e.g., I have some pretty awful habits (reverse-keyed)) and self-deceptive enhancement with 20 items (e.g., I am a completely rational person ). Using the conventional scoring method, after reverse-keying appropriate items, participants received one point for each rating 6 and zero points for each rating 5. After completing the self-report scales, participants answered some demographic questions, returned their surveys, and were given credit for participation. On the whole, each self-report personality and attitude measure was internally consistent (see Table 1). RESULTS Baseline Levels of Explicit and Implicit Attitudes Toward Christians and Muslims Participants self-reported attitudes toward Christians (M = 5.20 when converted to a 6-point scale) were more positive than their self-reported attitudes toward Muslims (M = 4.20 on a

36 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR MEASURES OF RELIGIOUS DIMENSIONS, PERSONALITY, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS Personality and Attitude Measures Mean SD α Intrinsic Religious Orientation 3.73 0.85 0.88 Extrinsic Religious Orientation 2.18 0.57 0.74 Extrinsic-Social 1.95 0.72 0.53 Extrinsic-Personal 2.64 0.77 0.48 Quest Religious Orientation 4.96 1.31 0.81 Christian Orthodoxy 6.39 1.00 0.84 Religious Fundamentalism 5.36 1.52 0.90 Right-Wing Authoritarianism 5.43 1.02 0.90 Social Dominance Orientation 2.66 1.04 0.90 BIDR Impression Management 0.24 0.16 0.72 BIDR Self-Deceptive Enhancement 0.28 0.17 0.71 Anti-Arab Racism 3.60 1.02 0.66 Explicit Attitudes Toward Christians 6.20 1.00 0.97 Explicit Attitudes Toward Muslims 4.14 0.63 0.92 Christian-Muslim IAT Effect 0.29 0.14 Relative Explicit Christian-Muslim Attitude 0.00 1.52 IAT Conditions Congruent Latency (ms) 887.41 170.17 Incongruent Latency (ms) 1174.62 242.63 Congruent Log-Latency 6.69 0.17 Incongruent Log-Latency 6.98 0.19 Note: Each measure was scored so that higher values represent higher levels of the personality or attitude dimension. The positive value of the Christian-Muslim IAT effect can be interpreted as implicit prejudice toward Muslim (relative to Christian). The variable Relative Explicit Christian-Muslim Attitude was created by subtracting each participant s self-reported attitude toward Christians z-scores from his/her self-reported attitude toward Muslims z-scores. 6-point scale), t(147) = 9.33, p < 0.001. The same pattern was found at the implicit attitude level. Participants took significantly more time to categorize terms in the incongruent Christian-Muslim IAT condition than in the congruent Christian-Muslim IAT condition (Figure 1), what we call the Christian-Muslim IAT effect. In the incongruent IAT condition, the average log-latency was higher (M = 6.98, SD = 0.19) than in the congruent IAT condition (M = 6.69, SD = 0.17), t(69) = 17.96, p < 0.001. In other words, participants took significantly longer to associate Muslim names with pleasant terms than to associate Christian names with pleasant terms and they took less time to associate the Muslim names with unpleasant terms than to associate the Christian names with unpleasant terms. This pattern was interpreted to be evidence of implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims and implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians. Because women are typically more religiously committed than men (Stark 2002), we examined whether gender differences existed on the measures of these attitudes toward religious groups. Although women reported more positive attitudes toward Christianity (M = 6.38, SD = 0.77) than men (M = 5.72, SD = 1.27), F(1, 100) = 7.93, p < 0.01, no gender differences were found on self-reported attitudes toward Muslims (Women: M = 4.24, SD = 0.64; Men: M = 4.22, SD = 0.70) or on the Christian-Muslim IAT effect (Women: M = 0.30, SD = 0.13; Men: M = 0.28, SD = 0.15), Fs < 1, ns.

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS 37 FIGURE 1 MEAN LATENCY RESULTS FOR THE CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM IAT LATENCY (in ms) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1174.61 877.41 Incongruent Congruent IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST (IAT) CONDITION Associations Between Measures of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Like other researchers who study the correspondence between implicit and explicit attitudes (e.g., Nosek 2004; Rudman et al. 1999), we maximized the comparability of the implicit and explicit measures by creating a relative explicit attitude variable to parallel the relative implicit measure. This variable was created by computing the difference between self-reported attitudes toward Christians and self-reported attitudes toward Muslims after each variable was standardized. A positive difference score can be interpreted as more favorable self-reported attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims and more negative self-reported attitudes toward Muslims relative to Christians. As shown in Table 2, implicit and explicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims correlated very slightly (r = 0.11). Similarly, Martin, Grande, and Crabb (2004) did not find a significant association between implicit and explicit measures of prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians. In comparison, Rudman et al. (1999) found reaction times to complete a very similar Christian-Jewish IAT correlated negligibly with self-reported pro-semitic attitudes (r = 0.12, ns). The pattern of small correlations suggests a possible disconnect or dissociation between the implicit activation of Christian-Muslim attitudes and the explicit expression of those attitudes by self-report. See Dovidio, Kawakami, and Beach (2001:182) for a more thorough discussion of the statistical relationship between explicit and implicit attitudes. Another analytic strategy we considered (but rejected) was to attempt to create an independent measure of implicit attitudes toward Muslims by subtracting the average reaction time in the pleasant/muslim condition from average reaction time in the unpleasant/muslim condition. After attempting to create such an independent IAT measure of association strength, Nosek, Greenwald, and Banaji (2004:17) concluded, the IAT cannot be analytically decomposed into separate assessments of association strengths. As such, like the hundreds of IAT studies conducted to date, the implicit measure in the current study is relative (i.e., implicit attitude toward Muslims relative to Christians), not independent. Researchers desiring to gain more control over the relative versus independent assessment of implicit attitudes could consider using the Go/No-Go Association Test (GNAT; Nosek and Banaji 2001). Personality Correlates of Attitudes Toward Christians and Muslims Bivariate Correlates of Self-Reported Attitudes Toward Christians As shown in Table 2, several religious dimensions correlated positively with self-reported attitudes toward Christians (i.e., religious fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, intrinsic religious

TABLE 2 ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIAL-PERSONALITY MEASURES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. Religious Fundamentalism 2. Right-Wing Authoritarianism 0.63 3. Christian Orthodoxy 0.64 0.48 4. Attitudes Toward Christians 0.67 0.54 0.82 5. Attitudes Toward Muslims 0.21 0.39 0.14 0.15 6. Anti-Arab Racism 0.19 0.32 0.19 0.15 0.78 7. Social Dominance Orientation 0.09 0.25 0.10 0.08 0.40 0.32 8. Intrinsic Religious Orientation 0.71 0.55 0.64 0.77 0.08 0.10 0.07 9. Extrinsic Religious Orientation 0.58 0.29 0.49 0.51 0.03 0.07 0.18 0.52 10. Quest Religious Orientation 0.39 0.42 0.32 0.31 0.01 0.18 0.07 0.23 0.27 11. BIDR Impression Management 0.28 0.17 0.10 0.20 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.31 0.25 0.19 12. BIDR Self-Deceptive Enhancement 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.17 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.08 0.09 0.36 13. Relative Explicit Christian-Muslim 0.56 0.63 0.64 0.76 0.76 0.60 0.19 0.56 0.36 0.21 0.07 0.08 14. Christian-Muslim IAT Effect 0.14 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.04 0.11 15. Gender (0 = Female; 1 = Male) 0.11 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.03 0.21 0.11 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.04 Note: BIDR = Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding; IAT = Implicit Association Test; n = 152; r > 0.19, p < 0.05; r > 0.23, p < 0.01; r > 0.27, p < 0.001. Scales were scored so that higher values indicated more of a particular dimension or more positive attitudes. Higher values on the relative explicit Christian-Muslim variable represent more positive attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims. 38 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS 39 orientation). Extrinsic and quest religious orientations correlated negatively with attitudes toward Christians. Of the nonreligious personality constructs, self-reported attitude toward Christians was positively correlated with right-wing authoritarianism (r = 0.54, p < 0.001) and impression management (r = 0.20, p < 0.05). Partial correlations (controlling for impression management) were computed between variables shown in Table 2, but were not reported because the magnitude of associations described above did not change more than two or three one-hundredths of a point. Bivariate Correlates of Self-Reported Attitudes Toward Muslims Attitude toward Muslims correlated negatively with anti-arab racism (r = 0.78, p < 0.001), SDO (r = 0.40, p < 0.001), right-wing authoritarianism (r = 0.39, p < 0.001), and religious fundamentalism (r = 0.21, p < 0.05), indicating that as these dimensions of the self increase, explicit attitudes toward Muslims become more negative. Bivariate Correlates of Relative Explicit Christian-Muslim Attitudes Moderate to strong positive correlations were observed between the difference score (i.e., positive attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims) and religious fundamentalism, rightwing authoritarianism, Christian orthodoxy, anti-arab racism, and intrinsic religious orientation. Women reported more positive attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims than did men. Small negative correlations were observed between the difference score (i.e., positive attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims) and both quest and extrinsic religious orientations. Neither component of socially desirable responding (i.e., impression management and self-deceptive enhancement) correlated appreciably with this measure of attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims. Bivariate Correlates of the Christian-Muslim IAT Effect As shown in Table 2, the only apparent correlates of this implicit measure were self-reported attitudes toward Christians (r = 0.25, p < 0.01) and Christian orthodoxy (r = 0.19, p < 0.05). In other words, increases in positive attitude toward Christians and Christian orthodoxy are associated with more positive implicit attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims. It is also accurate to say that as self-reported attitudes toward Christians or Christian orthodoxy increase, implicit attitudes toward Muslims relative to Christians become more negative. DISCUSSION Christian-Muslim relations throughout history have varied widely from cooperative, peaceful dialogues and interactions to turbulent, combative encounters (Goddard 2000). Toward the ends of understanding and possibly improving Christian-Muslim relations, this study identifies some patterns and personality correlates of implicit and explicit attitudes toward Christians and Muslims within a predominantly Protestant sample in the United States. Overall, the patterns in this study are consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel 1982). That is, Christians implicit and explicit evaluations of the in-group (i.e., Christian) are more favorable than their implicit and explicit evaluations of the out-group (i.e., Muslim). Several personality dimensions correlate with self-reported evaluations of Christians relative to Muslims, but did not correlate as strongly with implicit evaluations of the religious groups. For example, self-reported anti-arab racism, social dominance, and right-wing authoritarianism correlate inversely with self-reported attitudes toward Muslims in this sample. Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, Christian orthodoxy, intrinsic religious orientation, and anti-arab racism correlate positively with self-reported preference for Christians relative to

40 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION Muslims. Only two variables, self-reported attitudes toward Christians and Christian orthodoxy, correlated positively with implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims. It can also be interpreted that increases in self-reported attitudes toward Christians and Christian orthodoxy are associated with increases in implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians. The particularly strong association between self-reported anti-arab sentiment and selfreported attitudes toward Muslims merits discussion. As anti-arab racism increases, self-reported attitudes toward Muslims decrease sharply (r = 0.78). This finding could be a function of inaccurate cognitive stereotypes (e.g., thinking that most Muslims are Arabs when there are over 200 Muslim people groups around the world (Weekes 1984) or thinking that many Arabs are cunning, warlike, cruel, or unkind to women (see Slade 1981: Table 3)). The strong association between anti-arab racism and attitudes toward Muslims could also be due to pervasive in-group/out-group biases (i.e., thinking that one s in-group is better than out-groups; see Rowatt et al. 2002). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism both correlated negatively with self-reported attitudes toward Muslims (r = 0.40 and 0.39). Concerning social dominance, people in this predominantly Christian sample who desire their in-group to dominate and be superior to out-groups reported more negative attitudes toward Muslims (and more anti-arab racism). These patterns are consistent with previous findings that SDO correlates positively with anti-arab racism and attitudes toward the 1991 Iraq War (Pratto et al. 1994). The negative correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and self-reported attitude toward Muslims fits with an abundance of research showing right-wing authoritarians to be very ethnocentric and prejudiced (see Altemeyer 1996). We did not find self-report measures of right-wing ideology or religiosity to be particularly strong correlates of implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims (or implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christian), and are not sure why. However, other recent research indicates that (a) self-report measures of right-wing ideology correlate with general implicit ethnocentrism (Cunningham, Nezlek, and Banaji 2004), (b) self-reported right-wing authoritarianism correlates with specific implicit prejudice toward blacks relative to whites (Rowatt and Franklin 2004), and (c) religious fundamentalism correlates with more specific implicit prejudice toward homosexuals relative to heterosexuals (Rowatt et al. 2004). The pattern of associations between quest and attitudes toward the two religions warrants brief discussion. Quest correlates negatively with both implicit (r = 0.14) and explicit measures of attitudes toward Christians relative to Muslims (r = 0.21). One could interpret this to be evidence of tolerance for Muslims relative to Christians (cf. Batson et al. 2001); however, in light of the other patterns between quest and self-report measures, it is more likely that quest associates with more negative attitudes toward Christians at the implicit and explicit levels. Many social-cognitive psychologists are particularly interested in the correspondence between implicit and explicit attitudes (e.g., Fazio and Olson 2003; Nosek 2004; Rudman 2004a). The magnitude of association we find, although small (r = 0.11), is very similar to the size of associations between implicit and explicit measures of prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians in another study (Martin, Grande, and Crabb 2004) and between implicit and explicit measures of prejudice toward Jewish persons relative to Christians (Rudman et al. 1999). This pattern of small correlations suggests a possible disconnect or dissociation between the implicit activation of interreligious attitudes and the explicit expression of those attitudes by self-report. The small correspondence between implicit and explicit attitudes could be due to a third variable (see Nosek 2004) or it could be the case that implicit and explicit attitudes originate from different sources (see Rudman 2004a). Before concluding, an alternative interpretation for the Christian-Muslim IAT effect and some sample characteristics merit brief discussion. First, we interpret the IAT effect in this study to be evidence of implicit preference for Christians relative to Muslims (or implicit prejudice toward Muslims relative to Christians). However, it could be argued that people in this sample more

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS 41 quickly sorted familiar names (of Christians) than less familiar names (of Muslims). Although this alternative interpretation is intuitively appealing, familiarity explanations for IAT effects have been carefully examined and ruled out by previous researchers (see Dasgupta et al. 2000; Greenwald and Nosek 2001; Ottaway, Hayden, and Oakes 2001) and were not directly tested in this study. Second, although this sample included more women than men, gender did not account for considerable variation in these attitudes. Third, even though a few Muslims participated (n = 5), we opted to focus our analyses on the responses of the larger subsample of non-muslims (n = 152). As such, the patterns in this study generalize best to non-muslims in the United States, specifically American Protestants and Catholics. Future research on predictors of ethnic prejudices among a larger sample of Muslims and with members of other minority groups could be conducted (cf. Rudman, Feinberg, and Fairchild 2002). In closing, we suggest that a better understanding of the social-personality correlates of attitudes toward Christians and Muslims might help partially account for the wide range of peaceful and turbulent Christian-Muslim relations throughout history (see Goddard 2000). This idea rests on the assumption that psychological attitudes correlate with actual related behaviors, and they do (see Bushman and Bonacci 2004; Kraus 1995). However, additional research on the correspondence between implicit attitudes and actual criterion behaviors is needed. Reducing explicit and implicit biases (see Rudman 2004b) and improving Christian-Muslim relations will likely be a significant challenge. With respect to personality, it is probable that individuals with less authoritarian and less socially dominant dispositions will express more positive attitudes toward the out-group, and possibly experience more constructive relations. Along the same line, cultivation of a more inclusive spirituality might increase positive attitudes toward Muslims by non-muslims, and might lead to more open, positive, and pleasant Christian-Muslim interactions. On the interpersonal level, broadening social identity might reduce pervasive ingroup/out-group biases. Expansion of one s social identity to be more inclusive could occur through personal reflection and dialogue within and between families, schools, businesses, religious and political organizations, and other community groups. Further contraction of social identity within existing in-groups will likely polarize groups and foster more negative attitudes and behaviors between groups. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Portions of this research were presented at the January 2004 meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (Austin, TX) and at the March 2004 meeting of the American Psychological Association s Division 36 (Psychology of Religion; Loyola College of Maryland). REFERENCES Allport, G. W. and J. M. Ross. 1967. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5:432 43. Altareb, B. Y. 1997. Attitudes towards Muslims: Initial scale development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Muncie, IN: Ball State University. Altemeyer, B. 1996. The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Altemeyer, B. and B. Hunsberger. 1992. Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2:113 33. Asendorpf, J. B., R. Banse, and D. Mücke. 2002. Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality selfconcept: The case of shy behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83:380 93. Banaji, M. R., K. M. Lemm, and S. J. Carpenter. 2001. The social unconscious. In Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes, edited by A. Tesser and N. Schwarz, pp. 134 58. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Banse, R., J. Seise, and N. Zerbes. 2001. Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zietschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie 48:145 60. Batson, C. D., S. H. Eidelman, S. L. Higley, and S. A. Russell. 2001. And who is thy neighbor? II: Quest religion as a source of universal compassion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:39 50.

42 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION Batson, C. D., C. H. Flink, P. Schoenrade, J. Fultz, and V. Pych. 1986. Religious orientation and overt versus covert racial prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:175 81. Batson, C. D., S. J. Naifeh, and S. Pate. 1978. Social desirability, religious orientation, and racial prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 17:31 41. Batson, C. D., P. Schoenrade, and W. L. Ventis. 1993. Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Bushman, B. J. and A. M. Bonacci. 2004. You ve got mail: Using e-mail to examine the effect of prejudiced attitudes on discrimination against Arabs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40:753 59. Crosby, F., S. Bromley, and L. Saxe. 1980. Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:546 63. Cunningham, W. A., J. B. Nezlek, and M. R. Banaji. 2004. Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: Revisiting the ideologies of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30:1332 40. Cunningham, W. A., K. J. Preacher, and M. R. Banaji. 2001. Implicit attitude measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science 12:163 70. Dasgupta, N., D. E. McGhee, A. G. Greenwald, and M. R. Banaji. 2000. Automatic preference for white Americans: Eliminating the familiarity explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36:316 28. Devine, P. G. 2001. Implicit prejudice and stereotyping: How automatic are they?: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81:757 59. Devos, T. and M. R. Banaji. 2003. Implicit self and identity. In Handbook of self and identity, edited by M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney, pp. 153 75. New York: Guilford Press. Donahue, M. J. 1985. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48:400 19. Dovidio, J. F., K. Kawakami, and K. R. Beach. 2001. Implicit and explicit attitudes: Examination between measures of intergroup bias. In Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes, edited by R. Brown and S. Gaertner, pp. 1175 97. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Duck, R. J. and B. Hunsberger. 1999. Religious orientation and prejudice: The role of religious proscription, right-wing authoritarianism, and social desirability. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 9:157 79. Eagly, A. H. and S. Chaiken. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Farnham, S. D. 1998. FIAT 2.3 for windows [Computer Software]. Seattle, WA. Fazio, R. H. and M. A. Olson. 2003. Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology 54:297 327. Francis, L. J. and M. T. Stubbs. 1987. Measuring attitudes towards Christianity: From childhood to adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences 8:741 43. Franco, F. M. and A. Maass. 1999. Intentional control over prejudice: When the choice of the measure matters. European Journal of Social Psychology 29:469 77. Gawronski, B. 2002. What does the Implicit Association Test measure? A test of the convergent and discriminant validity of prejudice-related IATs. Experimental Psychology 49:171 80. Goddard, H. 2000. Christian-Muslim relations: A look backwards and a look forwards. Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 11:195 212. Goldfried, J. and M. Miner. 2002. Quest religion and the problem of limited compassion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:685 95. Greenwald, A. G., M. R. Banaji, L. A. Rudman, S. D. Farnham, B. A. Nosek, and D. S. Mellott. 2002. A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review 109:3 25. Greenwald, A. G., D. E. McGhee, and J. L. K. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:1464 80. Greenwald, A. G. and B. A. Nosek. 2001. Health of the Implicit Association Test at age 3. Zietschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie 48:85 93. Hassan, M. K. 1975. Religious prejudice among college students: A socio-psychological investigation. Journal of Social and Economic Studies 3:101 07. Heaven, P. C. L. and D. St. Quintin. 2003. Personality factors predict racial prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences 34:625 34. Herek, G. M. 1987. Religious orientation and prejudice: A comparison of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13:34 44. Himmelfarb, S. 1993. The measurement of attitudes. In The psychology of attitudes, edited by A. Eagly and S. Chaiken, pp. 23 87. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hogg, M. A. 2003. Social identity. In Handbook of self and identity, edited by M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney, pp. 462 79. New York: Guildford Press. Hunsberger, B. 1989. A short version of the Christian orthodoxy scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28:360 65.. 1995. Religion and prejudice: The role of religious fundamentalism, quest, and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues 51:113 29.

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ATTITUDES TOWARD CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS 43. 1996. Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward homosexuals in non-christian religious groups. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 6:39 49. Hunsberger, B., V. Owusu, and R. Duck. 1999. Religion and prejudice in Ghana and Canada: Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and attitudes toward homosexuals and women. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 9:181 94. Kirkpatrick, L. A. 1993. Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orientation as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:256 68. Kraus, S. J. 1995. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:58 75. Laythe, B., D. G. Finkel, and L. A. Kirkpatrick. 2001. Predicting prejudice from religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:1 10. Laythe, B., D. G. Finkel, R. G. Bringle, and L. A. Kirkpatrick. 2002. Religious fundamentalism as a predictor of prejudice: Atwo-component model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:623 35. Madani, A. O. 2000. Dissertation abstracts international: Section B The sciences and engineering. Depiction of Arabs and Muslims in the United States News Media 60(9-B):4965. Martin, M. R., A. H. Grande, and B. T. Crabb. 2004. Watch the war, hate Muslims more? Media exposure predicts implicit prejudice. Poster presented at the 16th meeting of the American Psychological Society, Chicago, IL. McConnell, A. R. and J. M. Leibold. 2001. Relations among the Implicit Association Test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37:435 42. Nosek, B. A. 2004. Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia. Nosek, B. A. and M. R. Banaji. 2001. The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition 19:161 76. Nosek, B.A., M. R. Banaji, and A. G. Greenwald. 2002. Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6:101 15. Nosek, B. A., A. G. Greenwald, and M. R. Banaji. 2004. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Manuscript under editorial review. Ottaway, S. A., D. C. Hayden, and M. A. Oakes. 2001. Implicit attitudes and racism: Effects of word familiarity and frequency in the Implicit Association Test. Social Cognition 19:97 144. Paulhus, D. and D. Reid. 1991. Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:307 17. Pratto, F. and M. Shih. 2000. Social dominance orientation and group context in implicit group prejudice. Psychological Science 11:515 18. Pratto, F., J. Sidanius, L. M. Stallworth, and B. F. Malle. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:741 63. Rowatt, W. C. and L. M. Franklin. 2004. Christian orthodoxy, religious fundamentalism, and right-wing authoritarianism as predictors of implicit racial prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 14:125 38. Rowatt, W. C., A. Ottenbreit, K. P. Nesselroade Jr., and P. A. Cunningham. 2002. On being holier-than-thou or humblerthan-thee: A social-psychological perspective on religiousness and humility. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:227 37. Rowatt, W. C., J. A. Tsang, J. Kelly, B. LaMartina, M. McCullers, and A. McKinley. 2004. Associations between religious personality dimensions and implicit homosexual prejudice. Manuscript under editorial review. Rudman, L. A. 2004a. Sources of implicit attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science 13:79 82.. 2004b. Social justice in our minds, homes, and society: The nature, causes, and consequences of implicit bias. Social Justice Research 17:129 42. Rudman, L. A., J. Feinberg, and K. Fairchild. 2002. Minority members implicit attitudes: Automatic ingroup bias as a function of group status. Social Cognition 20:294 320. Rudman, L. A., A. G. Greenwald, D. S. Mellott, and J. L. K. Schwartz. 1999. Measuring the automatic components of prejudice: Flexibility and generality of the Implicit Association Test. Social Cognition 17:437 65. Slade, S. 1981. The image of the Arab in America: Analysis of a poll on American attitudes. Middle East Journal 35:143 62. Stark, R. 2002. Physiology and faith: Addressing the universal gender difference in religious commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:495 507. Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology 33:1 39. Weekes, R. V. 1984. Muslim peoples: A world ethnographic survey. Westport, CO: Greenwood Press. Wittenbrink, B., C. M. Judd, and B. Park. 1997. Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:262 74. Wylie, L. and J. Forest. 1992. Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and prejudice. Psychological Reports 71:1291 98.