Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T11:59:27.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Belonging In a “Christian Nation”: The Explicit and Implicit Associations between Religion and National Group Membership

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2013

Carly M. Jacobs  and
Elizabeth Theiss-Morse
Carly M. Jacobs*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Elizabeth Theiss-Morse*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Carly M. Jacobs, Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0328. E-mail: [email protected]
Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0328. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If many consider the United States to be a Christian nation, how does this affect individuals who are American citizens but not Christian? We test two major hypotheses: (1) Americans consider Christians to be more fully American than non-Christians. We examine whether Americans explicitly and implicitly connect being Christian with being a true American; and (2) Christian Americans are more likely to be patriotic and set exclusive boundaries on the national group than non-Christian Americans. Among non-Christians, however, those who want to be fully accepted as American will be more patriotic and set more exclusive boundaries to emulate prototypical Americans than non-Christians who place less emphasis on national group membership. We test these hypotheses using data from a survey and from an Implicit Association Test. We find that Americans in general associate being Christian with being a true American. For Christians, this is true both explicitly and implicitly. For non-Christians, only the implicit measure uncovers an association. We also found that non-Christians exhibit significantly more pro-national group behaviors when they desire being prototypical than when they do not.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 373 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Branscombe, Nyla R., Ellemers, Naomi, Spears, Russell, and Doosje, Bertjan. 1999. “The Context and Content of Social Identity Threat.” In Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content, eds. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., and Doosje, B.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Calfano, Brian R., and Djupe, Paul A.. 2011. “Not in His Image: The Moderating Effect of Gender on Religious Appeals.” Politics & Religion 4:338–354.Google Scholar
Castano, Emanuele, Yzerbyt, Vincent, Bourguignon, David, and Seron, Eléonore. 2002. “Who May Enter? The Impact of In-group Identification on In-group/Out-group Categorization.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38:315–322.Google Scholar
Cheryan, Sapna, and Monin, Benoît. 2005. “‘Where Are You Really From?’: Asian Americans and Identity Denial.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:717–730.Google Scholar
Devine, Patricia G. 1989. “Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:5–18.Google Scholar
Devos, Thierry, and Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2005. “American = White?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88:447–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devos, Thierry, Ma, Debbie S., and Gaffud, Travis. 2008. “Is Barack Obama American Enough to be the Next President?” Poster presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the Narrow Data Base.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
First Amendment Center. 2007. “‘07 Survey Shows Americans’ Views Mixed on Basic Freedoms.” http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031 (Accessed on June 14, 2010).Google Scholar
Gallup. 2002. “In Government we Trust?” http://www.gallup.com/poll/6550/Government-Trust.aspx (Accessed on August 6, 2012).Google Scholar
Gallup. 2012. “Presidential Job Approval Center.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx (Accessed on August 6, 2012).Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., McGhee, Debbie E., and Schwartz, Jordan L.K.. 1998. “Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:1464–1480.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., Nosek, Brian A., and Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2003. “Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:197–216.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A., Fielding, Kelly S., and Darly, John M.. 2005. “Fringe Dwellers: Processes of Deviance and Marginalization in Groups.” In The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion, eds. Abrams, D., Hogg, M.A., and Marques, J.M.. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A., and Reid, Scott A.. 2006. “Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms.” Communication Theory 16:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael, and van Knippenberg, Daan. 2003. “Social Identity and Leadership Processes in Groups.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, eds. Berkowitz, Leonard, and Zanna, Mark P.. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Vol. 35., 2–52.Google Scholar
Jost, John T., Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Nosek, Brian A.. 2004. “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo.” Political Psychology 25 (6): 881–919.Google Scholar
Kawakami, Kerry, Phills, Curtis E., Greenwald, Anthony G., Simard, Daniel, Pontiero, Jeannette, Brnjas, Amy, Kahn, Beenish, Mills, Jennifer, and Dovido, John F.. 2012. “In Perfect Harmony: Syncrohizing the Self to Activated Social Categories.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102:562–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, Gary. 1986. “How Not to Lie with Statistics.” American Journal of Political Science 39:666–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosterman, Rick, and Feshbach, Seymour. 1989. “Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes.” Political Psychology 10:257–274.Google Scholar
Labaton, Stephen. 2007. “McCain Casts Muslims as Less Fit to Lead.” New York Times, September 20, 22.Google Scholar
Lane, Kristen A., Banaji, Mahzarin R., Nosek, Brian A., and Greenwald, Anthony G.. 2007. “Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV What We Know (So Far) about the Method.” In Implicit Measures of Attitudes, eds. Wittenbrink, Bernd, and Schwarz, Norbert. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lavrakas, Paul J. 1993. Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Luskin, Robert. 1991. “Abusus non tollit usum (English translation here): Standardized Coefficients, Correlations, and R2s.” American Journal of Political Science 35:1032–1046.Google Scholar
MacFarquhar, Neil. 2007. “Abandon Stereotypes, Muslims in America Say.” New York Times, 4 September, 12.Google Scholar
Mahtani, Minelle. 2002. “Interrogating the Hyphen-Nation: Canadian Multicultural Policy and ‘Mixed Race’ Identities.” Social Identities 8:67–90.Google Scholar
Marques, Jose M., Abrams, Dominic, Paez, Dario, and Hogg, Michael A.. 2001. “Social Categorization, Social Identification, and Rejection of Deviant Group Members.” In Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, eds. Hogg, M.A., and Tindale, S.. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marques, Jose M., Abrams, Dominic, and Serodio, Rui. 2001. “Being Better by Being Right: Subjective Group Dynamics and Derogation of In-group Deviants When Generic Norms Are Undermined.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81:436–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDermott, Monika L. 2009. “Religious Stereotyping and Voter Support for Evangelical Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly 62:340–354.Google Scholar
Morales, Lymari. 2010. “One in Three Americans ‘Extremely Patriotic’: Republicans, Conservatives, and Seniors Most Likely to Say So.” (http://www.gallup.com/poll/141110/one-three-americans-extremely-patriotic.aspx (Accessed on July 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Greenwald, Anthony G.. 2002. “Harvesting Group Attitudes and Beliefs from a Demonstration Website.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 6:101–115.Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian A., Greenwald, Anthony G., and Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 2005. “Using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method Variables and Construct Validity.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31:166–180.Google Scholar
Perin, Andrew J., and Smolek, Sondra J.. 2009. “Who Trusts? Race, Gender, and the September 11 Rally Effect Among Young Adults.” Social Science Research 38:134–145.Google Scholar
Forum, Pew. 2008. “New Report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Finds Religion in U.S. is Non-Dogmatic, Diverse, and Politically Relevant.” http://www.pewforum.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/New-Report-from-the-Pew-Forum-on-Religion-amp-Public-Life-Finds-Religion-in-US-is-Non-Dogmatic-Diverse-and-Politically-Relevant.aspx (Accessed on September 1, 2009).Google Scholar
Schmierbach, Mike, Boyle, Michael P., and McLeod, Douglas M.. 2005. “Civic Attachment in the Aftermath of September 11.” Mass Communication and Society 8:323–346.Google Scholar
Smith-McLallen, Aaron, Johnson, Blair T., Dovido, John F., and Pearson, Adam R.. 2006. “Black and White: The Role of Color Bias in Implicit Race Bias.” Social Cognition 24:46–73.Google Scholar
Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2009. Who Counts as an American? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, John C., Hogg, Michael A., Oakes, Penelope J., Reicher, Stephen D., and Wetherell, Margaret S.. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Waldzus, Sven, Mummendey, Amélie, Wenzel, Michael, and Boettcher, Franziska. 2004. “Of Bikers, Teachers and Germans: Groups' Diverging Views about Their Prototypicality.” British Journal of Social Psychology 43:385–400.Google Scholar
Wenzel, Michael. 2001. “A Social Categorization Approach to Distributive Justice: Social Identity as the Link Between Relevance of Inputs and Need for Justice.” British Journal of Social Psychology 40:315–335.Google Scholar
Wenzel, Michael, Mummendey, Amélie, Weber, Ulrike, and Waldzus, Sven. 2003. “The Ingroup as Pars Pro Toto: Projection from the Ingroup Onto the Inclusive Category as a Precursor to Social Discrimination.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29:461–473.Google Scholar
Zeleny, Jeff. 2009. “Persistent ‘Birthers’ Fringe Disorients Strategists.” http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.library.unl.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ (Accessed on June 14, 2010).Google Scholar