Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Personality > Religiosity and Politics > Flashcards

Religiosity and Politics Flashcards

(60 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Is religiosity a personality characteristic?

A

Religiosity is driven by situational factors

  • Religious socialization
  • Negative life events
  • Positive self-transcendent experiences 積極的自我超越的經驗
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

But religiosity

A

Also manifested 表現 in many behaviours across situations

e. g., praying, reading, attending services,…
- involves a variety of behaviours, thoughts, and feelings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Unlike personality traits, individual differences in religiosity

A

Depend on people’s beliefs, whereas personality traits do not depend on beliefs

Involve an entire way of living

Bonding

Belonging

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Differences in motivations

A

“intrinsic religiosity” vs. “extrinsic religiosity”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Religiosity and personality dimensions

Saroglou: meta-analysis of 71 studies, examine the ‘personal religiosity’

A

‘Personal religiosity’: beliefs and practices referring to a transcendent being and legitimized, to some extent, by an established tradition or group

Associations with personality traits are not very strong
- Agreeableness (r = .19) and Conscientiousness (r = .16) are the two main personality characteristics of religiousness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Are high A and high C people more attracted to religion or does religion make people high in A and C?

Longitudinal study by Wink et al. (2007):
Personality in adolescence predicts religiosity in late adulthood

A

High A people: social harmony, positive qualities in human relations, and the idea of a protective and loving God

High C people: the meaningfulness of life and the world, order in the universe through a sense of transcendence, and disciplined pursuit of valued goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Saroglou (2010) also investigated religious fundamentalism and spirituality

A

Religious fundamentalism: strict obedience and unquestioning devotion; authoritarian and dogmatic religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
- Negatively related to O

Spiritualism: emphasis on individual experience (often intense feeling), independence of religious traditions and beliefs
Positively related to Openness to Experience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

High O people

A

Inquisitive and unconventional: question religious traditions, rules, practices

Imaginative, feel connected to nature
-> seek spirituality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Religiosity of the family/household/parents strongly related to individual differences in religiosity

Personality variables may, however, affect this association

McCullough, Tsang, and Brion (2003):
Emotional (in)stability (= Neuroticism)
Sample of intelligent children from 1922-23 and follow-up in 1940-41

A

Weaker association (less religious) for emotional stable children compared to unstable children when the children have very strict religious upbringing - unstable are more religious

-> Emotionally unstable children may want to avoid conflict with parents/family, so they are more likely to stick with the religious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1997): Interviews with

“Amazing Apostates”: very non-religious people raised in a very religious household

“Amazing Believers”: very religious people raised in a very nonreligious household

A

Apostates - Conversion followed after thinking a great deal about their religion; period of reason and reflection and experiencing increasing doubts about their religion

Believers - conversion was more sudden, after a period of intense personal crisis; driven by passion and emotion suggesting a strong need for a sense of community and structure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Change and stability in religiosity: How do individual levels of religiosity change across the life-span?

McCullough et al (2005): Followed a sample of intelligent children from 1940 to 1991

A

Found a very small average increase in religiosity, But different patterns of change in religiosity

High - increasing
Low – declining
Parabolic - religious in early adulthood, becoming more so in midlife, then less religious through the remainder of the life course.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How stable are individual differences in religiosity?

McCullough et al (2005)

A

Fairly high level of stability Between 1940 and 1991 (51 years!): r = .55

For shorter spans (between 5 and 17 years): r’s = .61 to .92(!)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Religiosity and life outcomes

A

Health and Longevity 壽命

Life satisfaction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Health and Longevity: McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, and Koenig (2000)

Meta-analysis estimated the extent to which religious involvement is significantly associated with the odds of being alive at follow-up

A

Religious persons were about 25% less likely to die during the period of the study

Because of a healthier lifestyle

  • More support (psychological, financial,…) from community
  • Better recovery from illness due to less stress/more optimism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Life satisfaction: Salsman, Brown, Brechting, and Carlson (2005)

A

Intrinsic religiousness and prayer fulfilment = greater life satisfaction

Partly attributable to greater optimism and more social support

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Religion

A
  1. Is religiosity a personality characteristic?
  2. Religiosity and personality dimensions
  3. Change and stability in religiosity
  4. Religiosity and life outcomes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Politics

A
  1. The Authoritarian Personality
  2. Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA)
  3. Social Dilemma Orientation
  4. Dual Process Model of Ideology and Prejudice
  5. Social attitudes and personality
  6. Attitudes and behaviours towards non-human animals
  7. Genetic and environmental influence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q
  1. The Authoritarian Personality
A

Right-wing extremism = syndrome of authoritarian personality

Landmark study in social/political psychology

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Psychodynamic (Freudian) theory of the development of authoritarianism
- Harsh, punitive parenting and rigid parental values cause a tension between anxiety/fear of disapproval and punishment and hostility/anger towards parents (“intra-psychic conflict”)

A
  • Suppression of impulses leads to displacement of aggression towards ‘safer’ / ‘weaker’ targets such as ethnic minorities
  • > Reflects the dynamics of authoritarian submission and aggression
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Anti-Semitic attitudes co-vary with other characteristics such as anti-democratic tendencies, ethnocentrism, political and economic conservatism

A

Adorno et al. found positive associations between these constructs in survey studies

F-scale
- Based on interviews looking for common patterns in attitudes, behaviours, histories

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

The F-scale

A
  1. Conventionalism 傳統主義
  2. Authoritarian submission 專制順從
  3. Authoritarian aggression
  4. Anti-intraception: Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative
  5. Superstition 迷信 and stereotypy:
  6. Pre-occupation with power and toughness
  7. Destructiveness and cynicism
  8. Projectivity
  9. Pre-occupation with sex
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Conventionalism

A

Rigid adherence to traditional, middle class norms and values

e.g. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Authoritarian submission

A

Submissive, uncritical attitude toward in-group authorities

e.g. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Authoritarian aggression

A

Support for rejection and punishment of people who violate conventional norms 懲罰違反傳統規範的人

e.g. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Anti-intraception
Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative e.g. When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. 
26
Superstition and stereotypy
Belief in mystical determinants of individual’s fate e.g. Some day it will probably be shown that astrology 占卜 can explain a lot of things
27
Pre-occupation with power and toughness
Excessive concern with dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension e.g. It is best to use some prewar authorities in Germany to keep order and prevent chaos. 
28
Destructiveness and cynicism
General hostility toward humanity e.g. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict
29
Projectivity
Outward projection of unconscious impulses leading to dangerous world beliefs e.g. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so much, a person has to protect himself especially carefully against catching an infection or disease from them
30
Pre-occupation with sex
e.g. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame compared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it
31
Problems with the F-scale
Acquiescence bias: All items were worded in the same directions (no reversed-keyed items) -> Some people tend to agree with all items irrespective of the content No support for 9 different factors Studies using reversed items obtained low reliability coefficients
32
Problems with the theory (authoritarian personality)
No empirical evidence for Freudian/psychodynamic theoretical assumptions
33
2. Right-Wing authoritarianism Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996) developed the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA) Improved authoritarianism scale based on the F-scale
RWA-scale includes reverse-keyed items 3 (instead of 9) tendencies: - Conventionalism - Authoritarian submission - Authoritarian aggression Tendencies are theoretically assumed to be strongly related Better reliability
34
Conventionalism
Adherence to social conventions endorsed by established in-group authorities e.g. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married
35
Authoritarian submission
Uncritical submission/obedience to established authorities e.g. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn
36
Authoritarian aggression
Support for aggressiveness towards norm violators/deviants/outgroups e.g. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path
37
Social-cognitive approach instead of psychodynamic
Social learning during adolescence: | Harsh punishment leads to conformity, whereas tolerance leads to autonomy
38
Studies show that RWA is associated with
- Willingness to give harsher punishments to criminals - Approval of restrictions on civil liberties - Ethnocentrism - Anti-gay/anti-lesbian attitudes - Traditional gender roles - Support for aggressive military force - (extreme) Right-wing voting and party preferences - Opposition to environmental movement
39
3. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
SDO = Individual differences in desire for hierarchical vs. equal group relations in society SDO-scale measures support for - group-based dominance - intergroup inequality
40
Social Dominance Theory Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle (1994)
Hierarchical social order are maintained through individual and institutional discrimination
41
People differ in the extent to which they endorse attitudes, beliefs, ideologies, justifying group inequality and the oppression of some group by others: “legitimizing myths”
Two functional types of legitimizing myths: - Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies - Hierarchy-attenuating ideologies
42
Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies e.g., racism or meritocracy
Greater levels of group-based inequality e.g. Some groups of people are just more worthy than others
43
Hierarchy-attenuating ideologies e.g., anarchism and feminism
Greater levels of group-based equality. e.g. It would be good if all groups could be equal
44
Extensive evidence shows that SDO is related to
Prejudice towards a wide range of social groups - sexism, racism, anti-immigrant prejudice Opposition to progressive and social policies, affirmative action policies Support for military spending / military force
45
SDO and RWA are positively interrelated but are too weakly correlated to suggest that both variables represent the same construct
SDO is only weakly related to authoritarian submission Social dominators do not necessarily value conventions and traditions; only if these preserve hierarchical societal structures
46
4. Dual Process Model of Ideology and Prejudice | Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002
RWA and SDO both predict a range of criterion variables related to political and intergroup issues
47
Two variables account for a different aspect in out-group prejudice
Adherence to social norms (RWA) Preference for inequality (SDO) - > RWA and SDO: complementary predictors of ethnocentrism and out-group prejudice - > Two together produce a correlation considerably higher than either alone
48
Both RWA and SDO were introduced as ‘personality’ constructs but research suggests that both constructs are...
Influenced by contextual factors Predicted by ‘core’ personality traits Interestingly, different contextual factors and personality traits predict RWA and SDO
49
RWA and SDO represent two independent dimensions of social attitudes expressing different motivational goals
RWA: establish and maintain societal control, stability, and cohesion SDO: asserting power and group dominance
50
Threatening context + Personality: Social conformity -> Dangerous Worldview ->
RWA -> Prejudice towards threatening and low-status out-groups
51
Competitive context + Personality: Tough-mindedness -> Competitive Jungle Worldview ->
SDO -> Prejudice towards threatening and low-status out-groups
52
Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on RWA and SDO over a five months period of time Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt
RWA was so much higher than SDO
53
5. Social attitudes and personality Sibley and Duckitt (2008): Meta-analysis of 71 studies (N = 22,068)
Low Openness to experience = higher RWA High Conscientiousness = higher RWA -> low O and high C = social conformity Low Agreeableness = high SDO Honesty-Humility (HEXACO) = high SDO
54
6. What about attitudes and behaviours towards non-human animals? (Dhont & Hodson, 2014)
Speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism - using animals as objects for human benefit - meat consumption
55
High RWA = stick to cultural traditions and norms, also with respect to the use and consumption of animals
Vegetarianism/veganism are a threat to societal norms
56
High SDOs show a generalized striving for dominance, not restricted to human out-groups
Group-based dominance of humans over animals / human supremacy beliefs Vegetarianism/veganism is a threat to the dominant meat-culture
57
Example items of Vegetarianism threat
Vegetarians should have more respect for our traditional eating customs, which meat consumption is simply a part of Nowadays, when it comes to nutrition and meals, people listen too much to what a minority of vegetarians wants
58
Example items of Human Supremacy Beliefs
The life of an animal is just not of equal value as the life of a human being In an ideal world, humans and animals would be treated on an equal basis (reverse-coded)
59
RWA -> Threat perception ->...
Meat consumption + Speciesism support for exploitation of animals
60
SDO -> Threat perception + Human supremacy ->...
Meat consumption + Speciesism support for exploitation of animals

Personality (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions