Religious Priming Effects on Reactions to Political Situations

1. Religious Priming Effects on Reactions to Political Situations Alex Langley W. Paul Williamson Henderson State University

2. What is priming? Prior presentation of an idea facilitating recall of related memories or attention to related stimuli.

3. Priming in action

4. Previous Research Religion & Politics (Allen, 2006) General Effects of Priming (Bower, 1983) Priming & Religion Priming of �religious� words & the �religiously-committed� (Winger, 2003) Perception of �God-control� & susceptibility to religious priming (Wiegand & Weiss, 2006)

5. Research Question Can religion be used as a priming agent to elicit a certain effect with respect to political issues?

6. Hypotheses Ps who are religiously primed will judge political situations more critically than Ps who are not religiously primed. Ps who are high in fundamentalism will judge political situations more critically than Ps who are low in fundamentalism.

7. Research Design (2 X 2 X 4) Mixed Factorial Design Dependent Variable Langley Political Situation Scale (LPSS) Independent Variables Religious Priming (Yes, No) Fundamentalism (Low, High) Political Situations (within-subjects) TV Nudity Abortion Homosexuality Terrorism

8. Participants 41 Cross-Cultural Psychology Undergraduates Gender 17 Men 24 Women

9. Materials Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Altemyer & Hunsberger, 2005) North Dakota Null Hypothesis Brain Inventory (Byrne & Kelley, 1981) Religious Beliefs Scale (Thouless, 1935) Langley Political Situation Scale (LPSS) TV Nudity Abortion Homosexuality Terrorism

10. TV Nudity Situation On June 6, 2006, the FX television network aired an episode of the television series Nip/Tuck. Due to a programming error, Nip/Tuck aired one minute early, and on this episode a male actor was seen fully nude from the behind, resulting in television obscenity laws being broken. Nip/Tuck is an adult oriented television show, and as such it can only be aired after a certain time in order to follow the laws regarding television obscenity. Due to the television obscenity laws being tightened by the FCC, the FX television network would ordinarily have to pay a fine of $250,000. This case has not yet made it to the courts. Due to the fact that transmission erred by only one minute, the FX network is protesting paying the fine.

11. LPSS |_______________________________| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly Uncertain Strongly Disagree Agree ____ 1. The fine of $250,000 dollars is a fair sanction. ____ 2. In reality, FX probably planned the �accidental� nude scene. ____ 3. If it is found that the airing of the nude scene really was an accident, then FX should not have to pay the fine, even though the law requires it. (reverse-scored) Reliabilities LPSS: TV Nudity = .56; Homosexuality = .64; Abortion = .51; Terrorism = .67 Religious Fundamentalism Scale = .91

12. Procedure Pretest (2 weeks) Informed Consent & Code Religious Fundamentalism Scale North Dakota Null Hypothesis Brain Inventory Experiment Groups Priming (Religious Beliefs Scale) No Priming Political Situations & LPSS Debriefing

13. Critical Judgment: Within-Subjects F (3,111)=15.5, p < .001 Political Situations TV Nudity (M = 11.65, SE = .89) Homosexuality (M = 12.78, SE = .87) Abortion (M = 9.62, SE = .82) Terrorism (M = 16.64, SE = .77)

14. Critical Judgment: Within-Subjects

15. Critical Judgment:Priming X Situations F (3,111) = 4.7, p < .01 Political Situations TV Nudity Primed (M = 9.36, SE = 1.21) Not primed (M = 13.93, SE = 1.23) Homosexuality Primed (M = 12.42, SE = 1.19) Not primed (M = 13.14, SE = 1.27) Abortion Primed (M = 11.16, SE =1.11) Not primed (M = 8.08, SE = 1.20) Terrorism Primed (M = 16.12, SE = 1.09) Not primed (M = 17.15, SE = 1.09)

16. Critical Judgment:Priming X Situations

17. Critical Judgment:Fundamentalism X Situations F (3,111) = 2.1, p = .10 Political Situations TV Nudity High fundamentalism (M = 13.56, SE = 1.25) Low fundamentalism (M = 9.74, SE = 1.25) Homosexuality High fundamentalism (M = 15.42, SE = 1.35) Low fundamentalism (M = 10.14, SE = 1.23) Abortion High fundamentalism (M = 10.01, SE = 1.16) Low fundamentalism (M = 9.23, SE = 1.16) Terrorism High fundamentalism (M = 17.15, SE = 1.09) Low fundamentalism (M = 16.12, SE = 1.09)

18. Critical Judgment:Fundamentalism X Situations

19. Critical Judgment: Between-Subjects Priming (non-significant) Fundamentalism (F [1, 37] = 6.6, p < .05) Low (M = 11.31, SE = .75) High (M = 14.04, SE = .75) No Interaction

20. Critical Judgment: Fundamentalism

21. Discussion of Hypotheses Ps who are religiously primed will judge political situations more critically than Ps who are not religiously primed. (Reject) Ps who are high in fundamentalism will judge political situations more critically than Ps who are low in fundamentalism. (Retain)

22. Future Research Possibilities Gender differences Different stimulus material Different religiosity scale

23. Impact on Society Although priming was not a significant factor in the ratings of situations by participants, religion clearly was. Religion is a far reaching element in our society today and has significant influence on the way in which that people react to political issues.

24. References Allen, M. (2006). Courting the devout: What G.O.P operatives are doing to get scandal-weary but vital Christian conservatives to the polls. Time, 168, 56-58. Alles, G. (2006). The so-called cognitive optimum and the cost of religious concepts. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 18, 325-350. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised religious fundamentalism scale: The short and sweet of it. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 47-54. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2005). Fundamentalism and authoritarianism. In R. F. Paoutzian & C. L. Parks (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 378-393). New York: Guilford Press. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073. Blair, E., Locke, E., & Stajkovic, A. (2006). A first examination of the relationships between primed subconscious goals, assigned conscious goals, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1172-1180. Boese, A. (2002). The museum of hoaxes: A collection of pranks, stunts, deceptions, and other wonderful stories contrived for the public from the Middle Ages to the new millenium. Boston, MA: Dutton. Byrne, D. & Kelley, K. (1981). North Dakota Null Hypothesis Brain Inventory. An introduction to personality (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall. Chelazzi, L., Fanini, A., & Nobre, A. (2006). Selecting and ignoring the component features of a visual object: A negative priming paradigm. Visual Cognition, 14, 584-618. Claus, J., Karremans, J., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Beyond Vicary's fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 792-798. Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., & Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 323-340. Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2006). Reading words in discourse: The modulation of lexical priming effects by message-level context. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 5, 107-127. Mase, T., McKee, S., Nhean, S., & Hinson, R. (2006). Smoking for weight control: effect of priming for body image in female restrained eaters. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 2319-2323. Mayr, S., & Buchner, A. (2006). Evidence for episodic retrieval of inadequate prime responses in auditory negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 932-943. McCutcheon, R. T. (2006). "It's a lie. There's no truth in it! It's a sin!": on the limits of the humanistic study of religion and the costs of saving others from themselves. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 74, 720-750. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2001) Attachment theory and intergroup bias: evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, 97-115. Mort, J., & Slone, D. (2006). Considering the Rationality of Ritual Behavior. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 18, 424-439. Murphy, C., & Watlington, C. (2006). The roles of religion and spirituality among African-American survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 837-857. Murphy, T. (2006). Cultural understandings of "religion": the hermeneutical context of teaching religious studies in North America. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion. 18, 197-218. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 701-726. Thouless, R. (1935) The tendency to certainty in religious belief. British Journal of Psychology, 26, 16-31. Vial, T. (2006).How does the cognitive science of religion stack up as a big theory, � la hume? Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 18, 351-371. Weiss, H., & Wiegand, K. (2006). Affective reactions to the thought of "God": Moderating effects of the image of God. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 23-40.