Priming religious belief and religious social behavior affects support for democracy

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 368-382

  Bloom, Pazit Ben Nun ^a   Arikan, Gizem ^b  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^b YASAR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887944834     PISSN: 09542892     EISSN: 14716909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/eds030     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, N. R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
2. Albertson, B. L. (2011). Religious appeals and implicit attitudes. Political Psychology, 32(1), 109-130. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00793.x.
3. Altemeyer, R. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition (pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Ben-Nun Bloom, P., & Arikan, G. (2012a). A two-edged sword: The differential effect of religious belief and religious social context on attitudes towards democracy. Political Behavior, 34(2), 249-276. doi: 10.1007/s11109-011-9157-x.
7. Ben-Nun Bloom, P., & Arikan, G. (2012b). Religion and support for democracy: A cross-national test of the mediating mechanisms. Manuscript accepted for publication in British Journal of Political Science.
8. Bishop, G. F., Oldendick, R. W., & Tuchfarber, A. J. (1982). Political information processing: Question order and context effects. Political Behavior, 4(2), 177-200. doi: 10.1007/BF00987188.
9. Canetti-Nisim, D. (2004). The effect of religiosity on endorsement of democratic values: The mediating influence of authoritarianism. Political Behavior, 26(4), 377-398. doi: 10.1007/s11109-004-0901-3.
10. Carkoglu, A., & Kalaycioglu, E. (2007). Turkish democracy today: Elections, protest and stability in an Islamic society. London: I. B. Taurus.
11. Carkoglu, A., & Kalaycioglu, E. (2009). Turkiye'de dindarl|k: Uluslararas| bir karsilastirma. [Religiosity in Turkey: A cross-national comparison]. Istanbul: Sabanci University.
12. Dekker, P., & Halman, L. (2003). The values of volunteering: Cross-cultural perspectives. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
13. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14. Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5, 435-57. doi: 10.1017/S0007123400008309.
15. Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity. Political Psychology, 24(1), 41-74. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00316.
16. Gibson, J. L. (1992). The political consequences of intolerance: Cultural conformity and political freedom. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 338-356. doi: 10.2307/1964224.
17. Ginges, J., Hansen, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2009). Religion and support for suicide attacks. Psychological Science, 20(2), 224-230. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02270.x.
18. Hunsberger, B. (1995). Religion and prejudice: The role of religious fundamentalism, quest and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 51(2), 113-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01326.x.
19. Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. (2010). Priming Christian religious concepts increases racial prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(2), 119-126. doi: 10.1177/1948550609357246.
20. Kalaycioglu, E. (2010, April). Islam, secularism, and democracy: Insights from Turkish politics Paper presented at the Annual Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
21. Karpov, V. (2002). Tolerance in the United States and Poland. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 267-288. doi: 10.1111/1468-5906.00116.
22. Kellstedt, L. A., Green, J. C., Guth, J. L., & Smidt, C. E. (1997, August). Is there a culture war? Religion and the 1996 election Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
23. Kotler-Berkowitz, L. A. (2001). Religion and voting behaviour in Great Britain: A reassessment. British Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 523-554. doi: 10.1017/S0007123401000205.
24. Krosnick, J. A., & Brannon, L. A. (1993). The impact of the Gulf war on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Multidimensional effects of political involvement. American Political Science Review, 87(4), 963-975. doi: 10.2307/2938828.
25. Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 497-512. doi: 10.2307/1963531.
26. Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633.
27. McFarland, S.G. (1981). Effects of question order on survey responses. Political Research Quarterly, 45(2), 208-215.
28. McKay, R., Efferson, C., Whitehouse, H., & Fehr, E. (2011). Wrath of god: Religious primes and punishment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1858-1863. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2125.
29. Neiheisel, J. R., Djupe, P. A., & Sokhey, A. E. (2008). Veni, vidi, disseri: Churches and the promise of democratic deliberation. American Politics Research, 20(10), 1-31. doi: 10.1177/1532673X08324216.
30. Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610073.
31. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791017.
33. Pichon, I., Boccato, G., & Saroglou, V. (2007). Nonconcious influence of religion on prosociality: A priming study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 1-6. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.416.
34. Preston, J. L., Ritter, R. A., & Hernandez, J. I. (2010). Principles of religious prosociality: A review and reformulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 574-590. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00286.x.
35. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
36. Randolph-Seng, B., & Neilson, M. E. (2007). Honesty: One effect of primed religious representations. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17(4), 303-315. doi: 10.1080/10508610701572812.
37. Salancik, G., & Conway, M. (1975). Attitude inferences from salient and relevant cognitive content about behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 829-840. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.829.
38. Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz's model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 721-734. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.005.
39. Schuman, H., Presser, S., & Ludwig, J. (1981). Context effects on survey responses to questions about abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(2), 216-223. doi: 10.1086/268652.
40. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
41. Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(2), 88-107. doi: 10.2307/2787148.
42. Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God is watching you. Psychological Science, 18(9), 803-809. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01983.x.
43. Tepe, S. (2005). Religious parties and democracy: A comparative assessment of Israel and Turkey. Democratization, 12(3), 283-307. doi: 10.1080/13510340500126731.
44. Thornton, M., & Weber, C. (2009, July). Priming religiosity in American politics. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Dublin, Ireland.
45. Toprak, B. (1995). Islam and the secular state in Turkey. In C. Balim, E. Kalaycioglu, C. Karatas, G. M. Winrow & F. Yasamee (Eds.), Turkey: Political, social, and economic challenges in the 1990s (pp. 90-96). Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
46. Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 299-314. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299.
47. Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K., Bradburn, N., & D'Andrade, R. (1989). Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(4), 495-524. doi: 10.1086/269169.
48. Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., & White, I. K. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 75-89. doi: 10.1017/S0003055402004240.
49. Voestermans, P. (1999). Cultural psychology looks at culture. In W. Maiers, B. Bayer, B. D. Esgalhado, R. Jorna & E. Schraube (Eds.), Challenges to theoretical psychology (pp. 304-311). Ontario, Canada: Captus Press.
50. Wald, K. D., & Smidt, C. E. (1993). Measurement strategies in the study of religion and politics. In D. C. Leege & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics (pp. 26-49). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
51. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93(3), 322-359.
52. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579-616. doi: 10.2307/2111583.