Gervais has a new paper out that covers some of the same territory but extends it in interesting ways.
In particular, he looked at how distrust varies across countries, depending on how numerous atheists were locally. As predicted, people living in countries with more atheists were more likely to be comfortable with the idea of an atheist President.
In another study, students were asked to read an essay that either told them that there were very few atheists at their university (only 5% of students), or alternatively one that told them atheists were very common (50% of students at their university, and the fourth largest religious group in the world). Sure enough, those students who were told that atheists were common also thought that they were more trustworthy.
The last study (which was one I briefly mentioned in my last post) used a cunning test (the implicit association test) to find out whether this shift in attitudes was only superficial, or something deeper.
In this test, the subjects are given pictures of two people - one they are told is an atheist, the other a religious person. They then have to categorize words related to trust/distrust when paired with one or the other person. How long takes to do this depends on whether the pairings jar with your preconceptions.
And, as you can see in the graph, their implicit, subconscious trust of atheists really does seem to have been affected by the simple expedient of making them think that atheists are more common than they realised.
So what's going on here? Well, Gervais outlines all sorts of possible explanations. It might be that if they think that atheists are common, they conclude that some of the people they've met around the place must be atheists after all - and they were OK. Alternatively, they might think that, if there are a lot of atheists, then a lot of people must think that atheists are OK. There are various other ways in which simply being more numerous can make a group of 'others' seem less weird.
Personally, however, I think there is a special feature of atheism that separates it from many other kinds of predjudice - and that's the fact that atheism is a choice. When there are only very few atheists, then the only people who are going to 'come out' as atheists are likely to be those who are a little maverick.
If lots of people choose to be atheists, then it's clearly something that 'normal' people do. In other words, distrust of atheists when they are a tiny minority might well be a perfectly rational rule of thumb!
Gervais, W. (2011). Finding the Faithless: Perceived Atheist Prevalence Reduces Anti-Atheist Prejudice Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (4), 543-556 DOI: 10.1177/0146167211399583
This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.
Hmmm... can it be implied if atheists are more in the public eye then the dislike goes down? In other words, if we appear to be more numerous then the general population's opinion of us will improve.
ReplyDeleteContrary to this post atheism is NOT a choice. This idea that it is a choice, that atheists are somehow choosing to reject God and by extension all tha is good, is probably a significant source of prejudice against atheists. No one chooses to believe that the sky is blue, they just walk outside and observe it. The belief is unavoidable given the observed evidence. Atheism is no different.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a choice is whether and when to come out as an atheist. Whether to risk losing family and friends because of one's beliefs, or to be dishonest with them. That is as much a consequence of prejudice against atheists as a cuase. In that respect, atheism isn't that different from homosexuality.
Andy - yes, spot on. That's exactly what this study suggests. The more people go out an about and talk about their atheism - in a normal, non-aggravated way - the more anti-atheist bias will reduce.
ReplyDeleteFrank - what I had in mind was the difference between groups that are based on opinions (religion/non-religion, politics, origame enthusiasts) and those based on birth - race, sex, etc. OK, you could argue that non-belief has a genetic component, but only in the same way that all attitudes and opinions do.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I take your point that what people say about their religion and what they believe are often very different things. And that there is a vicious circle of non-disclosure, leading to prejudice, further inhibiting disclosure.
I've been thinking that there's one further complication that's specific to atheism.
ReplyDeleteTo most, the self-described atheist isn't merely presenting their identity.
The atheist isn't seen as just a member of yet another group who can be dismissed by each religion as simply more "outsiders" very mistaken about the most important aspect of life. Even to the non-religious, being atheist is qualitatively different.
To my mind, the out atheist is (intentionally or otherwise) calling the bluff of everybody who ever put into words an idea that they claimed was the thought of a supreme being.
In support of Frank Ballamy,
ReplyDeleteI did not CHOOSE to be an atheist. I actively fought against it but had to accept the conclusion or be intellectually dishonest.
I chose to accept the title after reading The God Delusion, but I had been a "silent" atheist for decades prior to this.
In spite of hanging out on atheist social network pages I do not know anyone who actually chose to be an atheist or an agnostic. The only people I have heard say this are fundamentalist Christians who believe (I think wrongly) that they used to be an "atheist". Their definition of the word is nothing like the one that most on-line atheists use to describe themselves.
Where did the author get this odd idea?
I'd also like to note that it is at least problematic to say that atheism is a choice.
ReplyDeleteSeriously?
ReplyDeleteFirst, half the people in the world are women and there remains a whole lot of prejudice agaist them.
Second, I agree atheism is not a choice and you don't have to be stuck in some kind of limited evolutionary/genetic perspective to realize that. Attending church may be a choice but belief can't just be pulled out of thin air.
Third, there are so so many other examples of prejudice based on acheived/ascribed rather than inherited characterisitcs.
Egad.
I choose to not believe in Santa Claus too. Doesn't everybody make that "choice"? Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteAlso, atheism is a form of prejudice? How does that work?
A little late to the party, I guess, but I'd like to chime in, nevertheless ...
ReplyDeleteI don't consider atheism a choice, either. I mean, you either believe something, or you don't. Honestly, there's a part of me that would like to believe in some of the more pleasant conclusions to which many religions have come. But whether I want to believe doesn't enter into it.
I could change my mind, I suppose, but that wouldn't really be a choice, either - it would require some sort of convincing proof. Without any actual hard evidence, I just can't believe in any god(s) or afterlife or "unseen world" of spirits or magical healing, or whatever.
Now, there hasn't been any kind of study of this that I know of (I think it would be very problematic), but I have a hypothesis that many (not all, by any stretch) believers actually don't believe, so much as delude themselves - telling themselves comforting lies - and that's why so many of them see atheism as a choice. Furthermore, I suspect that this may be why some believers are so obsessed with converting others - they may take some comfort in convincing others of their own delusions because: "Hey, if all these other people buy it, too, then I can't be completely wrong, can I?" Now there is an interesting twist on safety in numbers.
Just my 2¢, for what it's worth.