389

DOI: 10.1037/14046-020 APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality: Vol. 2. An Applied Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, K. I. Pargament (Editor-in-Chief) Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

C h a P t e r 2 0

an applIEd IntEgratIVE approaCh to ExplorIng how

rElIgIon and spIrItualIty ContrIButE to or CountEraCt prEjudICE and dIsCrImInatIon

Carrie Doehring

In the following three case examples, consider the ways that religion and spirituality contribute to and counteract prejudice.

Case Example 1 Janice initiated marital counseling

because of escalating conflict between her husband Bill and their 18-year-old daughter Suzy. Janice disagreed with how Bill was handling this conflict. At the dinner table, whenever Bill made derogatory remarks about the Latino men who worked in his lawn care busi- ness, Suzy heatedly challenged him: How could he say he was a Christian and be so prejudiced? Bill argued that he had to lay down the law with his employees because they were lazy. Being a strict boss was part of his Christian work ethic. Suzy said she was against racism and wanted to be part of a summer outreach to illegal immigrants on the Mexican–American border. Bill had forbidden her to go. Bill agreed to marriage counseling if they could find a Christian marriage counselor who held religious views similar to his: Someone who could help them live out biblical mandates to be strong parents.

Case Example 2 Samantha, a supervising psycholo-

gist at a campus-based clinic, consulted

with a colleague who specialized in organizational diversity training. She was troubled by remarks made by other supervisors about an international practi- cum student, Eunjoo Cho, a woman from Korea, who had the lowest caseload at the clinic.

At a recent supervisory meeting there was an extensive discussion about whether Eunjoo’s quiet demeanor and her accent were making it “hard for her to retain clients.” Samantha was begin- ning to question whether subtle forms of racism and sexism might be influencing the way she and her colleagues identi- fied aspects of Eunjoo’s identity as the problem. These questions distressed her because she was committed to valuing social justice and antiracism as part of her Jewish beliefs.

Case Example 3 Jasmine is an African American

24-year-old woman who joined the Army after her college graduation. During her college years she was part of a woman’s group in her community of faith that used African-centered spiritual practices to cope with all kinds of stress, includ- ing racism. She has been deployed in Afghanistan as a chaplain’s assistant.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Carrie Doehring

390

During her deployment she hoped to draw upon her undergraduate major in religious studies and use her spiritual practices in her work. She also wanted to explore a vocation for ministry.

She recently went to the psychologist at her base with symptoms of anxiety and depression. She described how angry she is with Roy, another chaplain’s assistant, who has made her life miserable by con- stantly questioning her appearance—her fitted uniform, styled hair, fingernail pol- ish and make-up. He attributes her popu- larity among the soldiers who stop by the chaplain’s office to the way she “dolls herself up.” Roy comes from a Chris- tian denomination that does not ordain women. He uses biblical texts to ques- tion how a “sexy babe” like her can even think about Christian ministry. Jasmine is bitter and disillusioned about her naive hope that she could not only survive but thrive during her deployment by being a spiritually strong team member of the chaplain’s office. Now she can’t even pray, is experiencing religious struggles, and hates going on duty.

As these three examples illustrate, the ways that religion and spirituality contribute to and counteract prejudice are complex and multifaceted. In Case Example 1, Bill’s religious paternalism contributes to the way he makes his daughter the problem and not his racism. He hopes he can find a counselor whose religious beliefs will support his paternalism. In Case Example 2, Samantha’s religious commitment to social justice counteracts possible prejudice by rais- ing questions about how Eunjoo’s supervisors focus on her accent and demeanor as the problem. In Case Example 3, Jasmine’s spiritual practices, which helped her cope with racism in the past, seem to have failed her in the face of religiously oriented sex- ual harassment. In these scenarios, people seek help. How will their clinicians address the complex ways that religion, spirituality, and prejudice are related?

To address this complexity, clinicians need to draw on an integrated paradigm for the psychology

of religion and spirituality (see Volume 1, Chapter 1, this handbook). Using this paradigm, clinicians assume that religion and spirituality are multidi- mensional, “made up of a myriad of thoughts, feel- ings, actions, experiences, relationships, and physiological responses” (Volume 1, Chapter 1, this handbook, p. 5) and hence are related to prejudice in a variety of life-enhancing, life-limiting, and destructive ways. Although some clinicians might be inclined to focus on religion as contributing to prej- udice and spirituality rather than as counteracting prejudice, “the critical question is not whether reli- gion and spirituality are good or bad [when it comes to prejudice], but rather when, how, and why they take constructive or destructive forms” (Volume 1, Chapter 1, this handbook, p. 7).

In this chapter, I explore the ways religion and spirituality contribute to or counteract prejudice using an integrated paradigm that strives to engage

■ psychological, cultural, religious, and theo- logical theories about prejudice, religion, and spirituality;

■ psychological research on religion and spirituality;

■ social psychological research on prejudice and discrimination; and

■ clinical, supervisory, and educational interven- tions with persons and organizations who are prejudiced, who discriminate, or who are targets of prejudice and discrimination.

The purpose of this chapter is to apply this inte- grated psychological paradigm of religion, spiritual- ity, and prejudice to the practices of clinical care and supervision. In this way, research findings and theories about religion, spirituality, and prejudice will be brought into conversation with practices of care and supervision in ways that take into account the complex psychological roles of religion and spir- ituality in the well-being of persons, families, and communities. The ultimate goal is to twofold: (a) to challenge the ways religion and spirituality psycho- logically contribute to prejudice and (b) to enhance spiritually integrated psychological change pro- cesses that counteract prejudice. In this way, coun- selors, supervisors, and teachers can be part of social

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

How Religion and Spirituality Contribute to or Counteract Prejudice and Discrimination

391

transformation that opposes religiously linked prejudice.

I begin with definitions of three types of prejudice, illustrating how clinicians can identify the role of religion and spirituality in each type of prejudice. Next, I review research on the relation- ship between prejudice and people’s religious world- views or orientations. I highlight the clinical need to assess when religion becomes “toxic” because of right-wing authoritarianism. I turn to research and education programs that counteract prejudice to highlight how clinicians, supervisees, and clients can implement religious and spiritual humanitarian values to counteract their tendencies toward preju- dice. I briefly consider how organizational antipreju- dice interventions can incorporate religion and spirituality by using an applied integrative paradigm for the psychology of religion and spirituality. Finally, I look at how this paradigm can be used by clinicians working with clients who are targets of prejudice and discrimination. Clinical narrative threads are woven throughout this chapter because of my focus on applying an integrative paradigm. I return to the opening examples to keep addressing the “So what?” question of how an integrated para- digm for understanding the psychology of religion, spirituality, and prejudice is relevant in the practices of clinical care and supervision.

DEFININg PREJuDICE, STEREOTyPINg, AND DISCRIMINATION

Stereotyping is

perceiving and treating others as repre- sentative of some group to which, on the basis of superficial appearance alone, one assumes they belong, and in the belief that they possess the psychological traits which one believes to characterise [sic] members of that group. (Richards, 2008, p. 238)

Social psychologists define prejudice as prejudgment that associates aspects of someone’s appearance or accent with stereotypes about gender, age, race (as a social or cultural and not a biological category), or other aspects of social identity. Although stereotypes

and prejudice can be positive, in this chapter, I will focus on negative stereotypes and prejudice. There are various types of prejudice. Prejudice can affirm one’s own group (self-affirming prejudice or in-group favoritism), express hostility or hatred toward a tar- geted group (hate prejudice; see Chapter 18 in this volume), or protect one’s group from threats (threat prejudice; Brewer, 2007). Discrimination is prejudice put into action: rejecting or excluding people who are targets of prejudice from access to the social privileges enjoyed by those in the majority. These terms can be elaborated and illustrated by returning to the opening examples.

Religion and Self-Affirming Prejudice Religious beliefs may be used to justify self-affirming prejudice, often in subtle, self-righteous ways. According to Silberman, Higgins, and Dweck (2005),

Religions often contain values and ideas that may facilitate prejudice, discrimina- tion, and violence by encouraging the consciousness of belonging to a select and privileged community, and by emphasizing the “otherness” of those who do not follow the tenets of the religion. (p. 774)

In Case Example 2, the supervisors comprise a select and privileged group within the clinic. As such, they may not recognize the ways that Eunjoo’s demeanor and accent make her “other.” They may be express- ing a self-affirming form of prejudice. They might, for example, believe that if only Eunjoo and other international students could speak English without an accent and act assertively like their supervisors do, they would be able to retain clients. These supervisors probably hold strong liberal beliefs about being fair and nondiscriminatory. These pro- gressive beliefs make it harder for them to question their attitude toward Eunjoo. This lack of reflection, along with the belief that they are not prejudiced, may paradoxically contribute to self-affirming preju- dice. On the other hand, religious beliefs have prompted Samantha to feel uneasy and to question whether she is living according to Jewish beliefs of being hospitable and looking after those who are marginalized. Her religious value of social justice

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Carrie Doehring

392

make her aware of the subtle ways that Eunjoo’s “otherness” may marginalize her.

Religion and Threat Prejudice Threat prejudice may be a “response to sacred values under threat and, in part, as a way of defend- ing against these threats” (Pargament, Trevino, Mahoney, & Silberman, 2007, p. 147; see also Stephan & Renfro, 2002). For example, Christians who see Jews as a threat—even as desecrators of Christianity—are more likely to have anti-Semitic attitudes (Pargament et al., 2007, p. 155). In this same study, people affirming the Christian value of love were less likely to be prejudiced against Jews. On the other hand, Pargament et al. (2007) found that negative religious coping, including beliefs that Jews are being punished by God, was tied to greater conflict with Jews and greater anti-Semitism. In a similar study, Abu-Raiya, Pargament, Mahoney, and Trevino (2008) found that Christians who view Muslims as desecrating Christianity and use nega- tive religious coping (including beliefs that God is punishing Muslims) are more likely to hold anti- Muslim attitudes. Christians using positive religious coping, including an emphasis on Christian love and a valuing of Islamic spirituality, had lower anti- Muslim beliefs (Abu-Raiya et al., 2008).

When clinicians ask questions about how clients are using religion in positive and negative ways to cope with stress, they can assess how religious cop- ing contributes to or counteracts threat prejudice. For example, in Case Example 1, Bill may feel threatened by his dependence on his employees (threat prejudice) because without them, he could not successfully run his business. He may be using religion in negative ways to cope with the stress of being dependent on his Latino employees. He may hold embedded beliefs that the success of his busi- ness is a consequence of both hard work and being blessed by God. Conversely, the hardships experi- enced by his Latino employees may signify that they have not worked as hard or been as blessed by God. This negative religious coping contributes to threat prejudice. If he were to examine these beliefs in spiritually integrated counseling (Pargament, 2007), then he might be able to use religion in positive ways to cope with the stress of running a business. A

therapist could explore Bill’s fears and whether he could collaboratively work with God to feel more hopeful about his business and thus less threatened by his reliance on his employees. Alternatively, life- enhancing spiritual practices could be explored, like expressing gratitude for moments when work goes well and taking in the beauty of nature when work- ing outdoors. These interventions may help Bill draw on his religion in positive ways that alleviate prejudice toward his employees.

Religion and Hate Prejudice Threats to one’s religious beliefs are often experi- enced as particularly dangerous and may provoke violent reactions that combine hate and threat prej- udice (Silberman et al., 2005). Religious beliefs can easily be used to fuel hate prejudice, as Appleby (2000) noted: “The facile invocation of religious symbols and stories can exacerbate ethnic tensions and foster a social climate conducive to riots, mob violence, or the random beatings and killings known as hate crimes” (p. 119). An example of hate prejudice is the increase in hate crimes toward those identified as Muslim after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (Sheridan, 2006). This kind of prejudice is evident in Case Example 1. Suzy accuses her father of making derogatory remarks about his Latino employees, remarks that express hostility if not hatred (hate prejudice). His authori- tarian religious beliefs about needing to be a “strong” boss and father, and his need for a Chris- tian counselor who supports his authoritarianism, reinforce both threat and hostile forms of prejudice.

As terror management theorists propose, the more people use their religious worldview and val- ues to ward off their terror of death, the more aggressively they will challenge groups that threaten their worldviews, sometimes going so far as to expe- rience such groups as evil (see Greenberg, Landau, Kosloff, & Solomon, 2009; Jones, 2002; see also Volume 1, Chapter 5, this handbook). Case Exam- ple 3 captures some of the complex ways religion contributes to hate prejudice. Roy believes that women should not seek ordination; he may also believe that women sexually tempt men to sin. Being deployed in Afghanistan may provoke a terror of

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

How Religion and Spirituality Contribute to or Counteract Prejudice and Discrimination

393

death for both Roy and Jasmine. Roy may react by challenging Jasmine for all of the ways she threatens his worldviews; indeed, he may see her as evil. The terror of death that Jasmine may experience in Afghanistan will be compounded by having some- one on her team who is no longer “watching her back” but rather is ready to stab her in the back. Jasmine experiences Roy’s hate prejudice as both life and soul threatening. She feels like Roy is desecrat- ing a sacred part of herself: her spiritual practices and religious vocation.

These research findings and illustrations can help clinicians begin to conceptualize and thus assess the ways that their clients’ religion may contribute to or counteract self-affirming, threat, and hate prejudice. To elaborate on the complex ways that religion, spirituality, and prejudice are related, I will summa- rize research on how prejudice is related to one’s worldview and, specifically, one’s religious orienta- tion. Using this research, clinicians and supervisors can identify which religious orientations will likely contribute to or counteract prejudice. They can assess whether right-wing authoritarianism—the “toxic” element of religious orientations that makes religious people prejudiced—is part of a client’s or supervisee’s worldview.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HOW RELIgIOuS ORIENTATIONS CONTRIBuTE TO PREJuDICE

Allport (1954/1979, 1966) was the first psycholo- gist to explore the relationship between prejudice and two kinds of religious orientations: an intrinsic motivation for religion that is personally meaning- ful and an extrinsic motivation for religion that has external benefits (Allport & Ross, 1967). Initial empirical studies supported Allport’s theory that an extrinsic religious orientation correlates with higher levels of prejudice, whereas an intrinsic reli- gious orientation is associated with lower levels of prejudice (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). Subsequent ways of conceptualizing intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations included a third ori- entation of religion as a quest that values searching and questioning (Batson & Schoenrade, 1991a, 1991b; Batson et al., 1993). Extensive research has

also focused on a fourth orientation, fundamental- ism, which is characterized as inflexible, close- minded convictions that one’s religious beliefs are absolutely true and must be followed. A fundamen- talist orientation involves an attitude toward one’s beliefs and not the content of one’s beliefs, and thus it can be used to describe any set of beliefs that are absolute and rigid (Altemeyer & Huns- berger, 1992). Clinicians may well find it daunting to use this extensive research on prejudice and religious orientation within an applied integrative paradigm for the psychology of religion and spiri- tuality. Several meta-analyses provide helpful over- views. In a meta-analysis of 16 North American studies between 1990 and 2005 that used measures of religious orientation (intrinsic, extrinsic, quest, and religious fundamentalism) and prejudice, Hun- sberger and Jackson (2005) found that the relation- ship between religious orientations and prejudice depends on whether particular kinds of prejudice, such as racism, are proscribed (i.e., explicitly opposed by one’s religious tradition or community) or nonproscribed (i.e., either endorsed or implicitly encouraged, such as heterosexism or benevolent sexism). In the 39 studies Hunsberger and Jackson (2005) analyzed that looked at religious fundamen- talism, they found that fundamentalism was posi- tively correlated with prejudice against sexual minority persons, Communists, women, and reli- gious out-groups, but it was not as clearly corre- lated across the board with prejudice toward racial minority persons (Batson et al., 1993; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005). What is it about fundamentalist religious attitudes that make them more likely to contribute to prejudice? This is an important ques- tion for clinicians and one that has been recently researched.

Research on Fundamentalism, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Prejudice Initial empirical research demonstrated that both religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritar- ianism (RWA) are positively correlated with preju- dice (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Hunsberger, Owusu, & Duck, 1999; Laythe, Finkel, Bringle, & Kirkpatrick, 2002). RWA has three components: submitting oneself to established authority, aggression

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Carrie Doehring

394

toward out-groups or deviants identified by the established authority, and conformity to traditions (conventionalism; Altemeyer, 1996, 2003). When Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) separated RWA from religious fundamentalism, they found, first, that prejudice was no longer correlated with reli- gious fundamentalism, and, second, that RWA was still significantly related to prejudice. Discussing similar findings, Laythe, Finkel, and Kirkpatrick (2001) proposed that religious fundamentalism might consist of two components: (a) RWA (which shapes the rigid and absolute way in which beliefs are held), which contributes to prejudice, and (b) Christian belief content, which does not contrib- ute to prejudice. These findings were corroborated by Rowatt and Franklin (2004).

These findings suggest that clinicians will need to assess and address the toxic role of RWA with cli- ents whose religious beliefs contribute to prejudice. There is no research on how self-affirming, hate, or threat prejudice are related to these three compo- nents of RWA (i.e., submitting oneself to established authority, aggression toward out-groups or deviants identified by the established authority, and conven- tionalism). Clinicians could make some guesses about this. Using religion to support aggression, especially toward religious out-groups or deviants, may foster both hate and threat prejudice. For example, in the first scenario, Bill’s religious pater- nalism includes being aggressive toward his Latino employees. If his religious orientation includes RWA, he might defer to anti-immigration political and media authorities that view Latino immigrants as out-groups (the second component of RWA). Bill seems to hold these sentiments: He views employees as lazy and, perhaps, deviant.

Another component of RWA, conformity toward traditions, could contribute toward self-affirming prejudice as well as prejudice that protects one’s religious tradition. This aspect of RWA may be part of Case Example 3, if Roy feels the need to conform to a religious tradition that identifies women as sex- ual temptresses and unsuitable for ordained minis- try. An Army psychologist counseling Jasmine might decide with her permission to consult with the chaplain’s office about helping team members explore moral dilemmas generated by conflicts

between their religious beliefs and their duties of providing spiritual care (e.g., to gay or lesbian sol- diers). This intervention might help team members talk about what it is like when their religious beliefs and values are at odds with military policies against discrimination on the basis of gender, race, and sex- ual orientation. Team members can be encouraged to explore overarching common values, like team- work, spiritual care, and compassion, all of which support the mission of the military. Open dialogue will encourage team members to challenge the way that beliefs and behaviors like Roy’s sexism under- mine their common mission. Group work permits Jasmine to contribute to these discussions before using other channels to confront Roy.

Research on the “toxic” role of RWA helps clini- cians evaluate whether a client’s religious funda- mentalism is contributing to prejudice. In spiritually integrated therapy (Pargament, 2007), clinicians can help clients identify beliefs, for example, in a loving God, that counteract their tendencies toward RWA and, hence, toward prejudice. Remembering that a client’s religious faith is dynamic, not static, clini- cians can use the metaphor of religion and spiritual- ity as a journey with pathways and destinations (Pargament, 2007; see also Volume 1, Chapter 1, this handbook). In the first scenario, a clinician could ally herself with Bill by empathizing with his goals to protect his daughter and his business. Then she could explore the origins of his hate and threat prejudice and also the religious journey that has made him value the destinations of being a “strong” father and boss. This exploration of his journey would help Bill feel understood. Then she could question whether Bill has other religious beliefs that offer alternative pathways to meet his goal of having strong relationships with his daughter and employ- ees. For example, he could identify the ways that he, Janice, their church community and God have worked together to make Suzy who she is. If he can experience the way he has collaborated with God in raising Suzy, he might be able to religiously cope with his fears about her safety by collaborating with a loving God who wants to let Suzy go her own way. Similarly, Bill could be asked to talk about the ways he tries to be a good boss with each of his employees as individuals. This conversation could encourage

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

How Religion and Spirituality Contribute to or Counteract Prejudice and Discrimination

395

Bill to become more intentional about living out his values of being a good boss by attending to his employees as unique persons and not as representa- tives of a group. These conversations would focus on positive aspects of his roles as father and boss in ways that reduce his religious paternalism and hostility.

Research on Religion, Cognitive Reasoning, and Prejudice Recent research on prejudice and religious funda- mentalism has focused on the role of cognitive rea- soning styles in the relationship of religion and prejudice. Hunsberger and Jackson (2005) suggest that people endorsing religious fundamentalism use less complex ways of thinking about their belief sys- tems, and they also may think convergently by mak- ing information fit into preexisting religious schema (Hunsberger, Alisat, Pancer, & Pratt, 1996). In con- trast, those using a quest orientation are more likely to use critical-thinking skills to question and recon- struct religious beliefs when experiences or infor- mation challenges these beliefs (McFarland & Warren, 1992).

Another line of research with similar findings has focused on the relation between racism and whether people hold literal or symbolically oriented beliefs. This research uses the Post-Critical Belief Scale (Duriez, Fontaine, & Hutsebaut, 2000) devel- oped to measure two distinctive features of religious beliefs: whether people believe in a transcendent reality and whether such beliefs are interpreted in literal or symbolic ways (Wulff, 1997). For exam- ple, fundamentalist Christians usually believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin who con- ceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. In contrast to this literal belief in the immaculate conception, Christians who approach doctrine in more symbolic ways might question whether the gospel stories about the birth of Jesus were told by early Chris- tians because in their historical context, extraordi- nary prophets and religious leaders were thought to have extraordinary birth narratives. Research on whether beliefs in a transcendent reality are literal or symbolic is particularly significant for an inte- grated psychological paradigm of religion, spiritual- ity, and prejudice because this research attempts to operationalize a distinctive aspect of religious

worldviews: literal or symbolic religious interpreta- tions. In investigating the relationships between prejudice and literal or symbolic beliefs in a tran- scendent reality in three samples drawn from Flan- ders (Belgium), Duriez (2004) found that beliefs or lack of beliefs in a transcendent reality were not related to racism. In contrast, the more people interpreted religious beliefs literally, the more likely they were to endorse items on a racism scale. This relationship remained significant even after control- ling for right-wing authoritarianism. Duriez con- cluded that “the danger of religious fundamentalism (RF) does not lie in religion as such but in the cogni- tive style that is applied when processing religious issues” (Duriez, 2004, p. 187).

These research findings suggest that clinicians may need to assess whether clients, supervisees, or students are using less complex cognitive styles when they draw on religious beliefs or worldviews to understand differences between themselves and others. When prompted to think in more complex ways about beliefs, people may be able to let go of simplistic or literal interpretations of religious beliefs that may have helped them cope in the past and to develop more multilayered religious insights that help them navigate difficult situations. For example, in Case Example 1, Bill and Janice’s mar- riage counselor could ask them whether being mar- ried and being parents have sacred meanings for them (Mahoney, Pargament, Murray-Swank, & Murray-Swank, 2003). She could invite them to explore their goals in marriage and parenthood and how they are trying to reach their goals. Bill’s paren- tal goal is to protect Suzy through prohibiting and arguing with her because he fears that Suzy will put herself in a dangerous situation and not be suspi- cious of those who might harm her. His marital goal is to provide a united front as parents, which means not arguing with each other. Because Janice is the one who wanted to pursue marriage counseling, she may well have a goal of open communication in her marriage and with Suzy. The counselor can invite them to elaborate on the sacred dimensions of their goals as a couple and as parents. She will listen closely for whether there are other spiritual goals besides protecting Suzy and whether there are other ways to reach these sacred goals besides Janice

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Carrie Doehring

396

backing up Bill, and Bill taking the lead as a husband and father, in prohibiting his daughter from her pursuits and in arguing with her about their conflicting beliefs. Exploring the pros and cons of these sacred goals and methods may foster open communication. New and more complex meanings about their spiritual goals and methods as parents and a couple may emerge. For example, participat- ing in counseling might persuade Bill to consider open communication as a spiritual parental goal. By inviting them to use spiritual ways of coping with stressful parental and marital moments, such as prayer, they may become more open to collaborating with each other and with God, which in turn can lead to more flexibility, closeness, and compassion.

Although this case study could go in many differ- ent directions, the exploration of marital and parental spiritual goals and methods will help the counselor assess how religious beliefs and practices are contrib- uting to these problems and, in this case, to Bill’s prejudice. Additionally, it will help the counselor determine whether religious beliefs can become a resource if clients are more intentional about seeking spiritual integration as parents and couples (for an elaboration of how to assess and work with spiritual- ity in family counseling, see Mahoney, LeRoy, Kusner, Padgett, & Grimes, 2013).

COuNTERACTINg PREJuDICE By IMPLEMENTINg RELIgIOuS OR SPIRITuAL VALuES

Having explored how religion and spirituality psy- chologically contribute to prejudice, I turn in the sections that follow to an examination of how reli- gious beliefs and values along with spiritual practices can be used intentionally in personal, communal, and cultural ways to counteract prejudice.

Research on Automatic Activation of Prejudice Clinicians can help clients, supervisees, and stu- dents implement religious or spiritual values to counteract the automatic activation of prejudice by drawing on recent studies on this unconscious pro- cess. Researchers use the term automatic activation of prejudice to refer to people’s immediate reactions to

others being shaped by stereotypes in ways outside of their conscious awareness. Social psychologists have recently started using neuroimaging to under- stand the specific brain mechanisms of automatic activation of prejudice, focusing on the amygdala, a part of the brain that responds to the emotional intensity of a stimulus (Amodio & Lieberman, 2009; Anderson et al., 2003; Cunningham, Nezlet, & Banaji, 2004). In one such study, Cunningham et al. (2004) had White participants view Black and White faces using a neuroimaging method (an event- related functional magnetic resonance imaging). They found that the amygdala is more active when Black faces rather than White faces are presented subliminally for brief time periods (30 ms). When the time period is extended to 525 ms, then there is greater activation of the prefrontal cortex, sug- gesting that higher order cognitive processing may be offsetting automatic activation of stereotypes. Such research supports distinctions made by social psychologists between implicit stereotype-based prejudice associated with amygdala activity that occurs outside of awareness versus prejudice and discrimination that engages semantic processing involving the prefrontal cortex. The latter process occurs when people either marshal beliefs to justify or rationalize prejudice or are internally motivated to counteract feelings and thoughts recognized to be discriminatory.

Laboratory-based research has demonstrated that guilt can play a positive role in motivating people to counteract prejudice. In a complex study by Amodio, Devine, and Harmon-Jones (2007), research partici- pants were told that their neurological responses to a multiracial series of faces were anti-Black. Par- ticipants who reported feeling guilty about these responses were subsequently more likely to interact with a Black member of the research team. The authors concluded that guilt is a complex social emotion that can play a dynamic role in motivating people to change (Amodio et al., 2007, p. 529). One can easily imagine how a healthy sense of guilt could be fostered when clinicians explore religious and spiritual values that focus less on individual shortcomings (understood theologically as personal sin) and more on all humans falling short in treating every person with dignity and respect (understood

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

How Religion and Spirituality Contribute to or Counteract Prejudice and Discrimination

397

theologically as collective sin). For example, in Case Example 2 (the scenario with the supervisors), Samantha seems to be initially motivated by guilt when she feels uneasy about how the supervisory group focuses on Eunjoo as the problem. Consulta- tion may help her see the complex and paradoxical ways that self-righteousness, whether rooted in lib- eral or conservative religious beliefs, can play into self-affirming prejudice toward Eunjoo. Samantha’s sense of religious responsibility to correct this wrong may become even more nuanced when she realizes that she and the other supervisors in a secu- lar context use unspoken cultural group norms that judge those, like Eunjoo, who are different. When these unspoken group norms, whether rooted in secular or religious beliefs, contribute to self-affirming prejudice, they are part of systemic racism and sex- ism, which, theologically speaking, is a form of col- lective wrongdoing. This nuanced appreciation for collective wrongdoing and guilt will help Samantha in multiple ways, especially as she empathically rather than judgmentally approaches her colleagues and invites them to explore what is going on.

As this and other research indicates, to counter- act automatically activated prejudice, people must first become aware of these automatically activated stereotypes; second, they must be personally moti- vated to counteract prejudice; and third, they must practice how to respond intentionally in nonpreju- dicial ways (Devine & Sharp, 2009). In helping stu- dents and supervisees prevent prejudice, clinicians can assess whether they are internally or externally motivated (Devine, Brodish, & Vance, 2005; Plant & Devine, 1998). Internal motivation includes a desire to put egalitarian or humanitarian values into practice. External motivation comes from the desire to conform to societal expectations by not appearing prejudiced. In one research study, those with high internal motivation to live out egalitarian values showed very little stereotype activation compared with those who lacked such values and goals (Mos- kowitz, Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999). Clini- cians, supervisors, teachers, and consultants can help people clarify their values and decide whether they want to draw on religiously or spiritually based humanitarian convictions to show compassion and not prejudice (van der Slik & Konig, 2006).

The Role of Religion and Spirituality in Organizational Interventions Diversity training has become a very popular form of prejudice reduction in hundreds of educational, business, government, and health organizations. In a recent comprehensive review of 985 published and unpublished reports written by academics and non- academics about interventions and programs designed to reduce prejudice, Paluck and Green (2009) described the array of such prejudice- reducing interventions, which includes “multicul- tural education, anti-bias instruction more generally, workplace diversity initiatives, dialogue groups, cooperative learning, moral and values education, intergroup contact, peace education, media inter- ventions, reading interventions, intercultural and sensitivity training, [and] cognitive training” (Paluck & Green, 2009, p. 341). They evaluated the methodological rigor used in tracking the outcomes of such interventions and found that nearly two thirds of these studies are nonexperimental. They do not use random assignment and control groups and thus cannot demonstrate empirically that their pro- grams made a significant difference in reducing prej- udice. More alarming is their finding that “entire genres of prejudice-reduction interventions, includ- ing moral education, organizational diversity train- ing, advertising, and cultural competence in the health and law enforcement professions, have never been tested” (Paluck & Green, 2009, p. 356). Other surveys and evaluative reviews of the range of inter- ventions for prejudice reduction (Aboud & Levy, 2000; Pedersen, Walker, & Wise, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005; Price et al., 2005) all highlight the need for organizational interventions based on labo- ratory research and outcome studies. This paucity of outcome studies is challenging for clinicians design- ing group interventions for reducing prejudice among students and supervisees.

This chapter has reviewed a number of research findings that could be utilized to design religiously oriented prejudice reduction interventions with the following features:

■ Exploring motivation to change. When people can find religious and spiritual reasons for reducing prejudice, they are more likely to be

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Carrie Doehring

398

intrinsically rather than extrinsically motivated to change.

■ Making use of healthy guilt about automatic prej- udice. Research on positive and negative religious coping suggests that healthy guilt may incor- porate beliefs in a compassionate loving God, unlike guilt based on beliefs in a punitive God or beliefs that suffering is a consequence of wrong- doing. Healthy guilt about prejudice will be more likely to motivate people to recognize when they experience automatic activation of prejudice and counteract such prejudice as a way of living out beliefs in love and compassion, beliefs that are part of their religion and spirituality.

■ Using religious and spiritual role models, men- tors, and peers who promote nonprejudiced responses and intergroup contact. Use of role models, mentors, and peers has been found to be effective in both laboratory and field research (McAlister, Ama, Barroso, Peters, & Kelder, 2000; Nagda, Kim, & Truelove, 2004; see also Volume 1, Chapter 10, this handbook); they would likely be even more effective when they explicitly incorporate their religious and spiritual beliefs and practices into counteracting prejudice.

■ Using media and stories of cooperation that emu- late religious, spiritual, and humanitarian values. Media and reading interventions, especially those portraying people similar to readers interacting positively with those different from themselves, are effective in reducing prejudice and are grounded in theories about extended contact and the persuasive power of stories that can commu- nicate norms, deepen empathy, and facilitate per- spective taking (Paluck & Green, 2009, p. 356).

■ Clarifying religious, spiritual, and humanitarian values, including injunctions such as the golden rule (“love your neighbor as yourself”). Explora- tion of values can help people shift from literal to more symbolic interpretations of their beliefs, sacred texts, and religious symbols. Symbolic interpretations are more likely to reduce preju- dice because they support complex rather than simple reasoning (Duriez, 2004; Duriez, Fon- taine, & Hutsebaut, 2000).

■ Exploring spiritual and religious practices like prayer and meditation that help one regulate

one’s immediate reactions. Spiritual and religious practices that enhance positive rather than nega- tive religious coping will help people experience love and compassion.

These suggestions for how to incorporate aspects of religion and spirituality into organizational inter- ventions for counteracting prejudice highlight both the complexity and the potential of applying an inte- grative psychological approach to religion, spiritual- ity, and prejudice.

Religious and Spiritual Practices That Help Victims Counteract Prejudice Since the 1980s, psychologists have studied how people who are targets of prejudice cope with stigma and discrimination (for a review, see Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Extensive research (summa- rized by Major, 2006) demonstrates that there is tre- mendous variability in how stigmatized groups cope with and respond to stigma. Within the past decade, research has begun to explore how religion facili- tates coping with the stress of prejudice, discrimina- tion, and stigma. Most of this research has been done with African Americans and uses a variety of ways to measure spirituality and religion that is spe- cific to African Americans and Canadians as well as Black South Africans (see Volume 1, Chapter 30, this handbook). Pargament (1997) noted that groups, such as African Americans, who have less access to secular resources and power in society often report that religion is a particularly helpful resource, as is demonstrated in these studies of spirituality, religion, and racism.

Several studies use Utsey and colleague’s (Utsey, Adams, & Bolden, 2000; Utsey, Brown, & Bolden, 2004) African-centered epistemological framework for understanding and measuring four dimensions of coping behavior: (a) cognitive–emotional debriefing; (b) spiritual-centered coping, such as connecting with spiritual elements in the universe; (c) collective coping; and (d) ritual-centered coping using African cultural practices that honor ancestors and deities and that celebrate events using rituals, such as lighting candles and burning incense. African American women experiencing stress generated by institutional racism used cognitive–emotional

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

How Religion and Spirituality Contribute to or Counteract Prejudice and Discrimination

399

debriefing coping, spiritual-centered coping, and collective coping (Lewis-Coles & Constantine, 2006). In a study of Black Canadians, Joseph and Kuo (2009) found that spiritual-centered coping strategies were the most frequently used ways of responding to interpersonal and institutional discrimination. In a study of Black South African women using the Black Women’s Spirituality and Religiosity Measure (Mat- tis, 1995), Copeland-Linder (2006) found that engagement in formal religion (e.g., church member- ship and attendance) buffered the effects of racism and work stress on physical health. The author noted that the women used prayer to gain perspective on problems and life purpose, which reduced the impact of racism stress and work-related stress on depressive symptoms. In a qualitative study of 196 African American women, Shorter-Gooden (2004) found that they coped with racism and sexism by using strategies that included self-affirming world- views or belief systems; prayer; and connection to their heritage, to African and African American cul- ture, and particularly to their ancestors. Bowen-Reid and Harrell (2002) used the 25-item spirituality scale designed by Jagers, Boykin, and Smith (1994) to measure spirituality from an Afrocultural perspec- tive. They found that Afrocultural spirituality mod- erated or buffered the relationship between perceived racial stress and psychological health out- comes among those who seem to internalize racist stress. The more one group of African American men used religious coping, the more they were able to forgive racial discrimination (Hammond, Banks, & Mattis, 2006). Religious services have been found to moderate the relationship between daily experiences of chronic racial discrimination and negative affect for mid-life African Americans (Bierman, 2006). A national longitudinal survey demonstrated that Afri- can Americans who gain guidance in daily living from religious practices like prayer and devotions, and who attended religious services, were less likely to experience psychological distress in response to racist encounters (Ellison, Musick, & Henderson, 2008). Drawing on the work of Pargament and oth- ers on experiences of violation or desecration (Parga- ment, Magyar, & Murray-Swank, 2005), the authors suggested that racist encounters may represent a kind of desecration or violation of one’s soul and that

religious practices and attendance may moderate the distress of soul-violating experiences of racism.

This review of research on how religion and spir- ituality can reduce the effects of racism highlights the value of exploring religious and spiritual coping that is especially relevant and meaningful for minor- ities. Yet few research studies have been conducted with racial and ethnic groups other than African Americans. One exception is a study of American Indians in the upper Midwest United States, which found that participation in various aspects of native culture (powwow participation, tribal language flu- ency and use, and others) moderated the relation- ship between perceived discrimination and depression (Whitbeck, McMorris, Hoyt, Stubben, & LaFramboise, 2002). Although clinically oriented literature on minority groups occasionally describes the benefits of religion and spirituality for coping with prejudice, empirical studies are needed on eth- nically meaningful religious coping. This arena of research, theory, and practice would benefit greatly from use of an interdisciplinary integrative approach that engages (a) the psychology of religious coping; (b) social psychological research on the effects of prejudice, discrimination, and stigma; and (c) psychologies and theologies of liberation.

Psychologists writing about the relationships among racism, religion, and spirituality have argued for a psychology of liberation (Adams, 2008) that draws on an African worldview (for a summary, see Hunter & Lewis-Coles, 2004), womanist spirituality (Williams & Wiggins, 2010), and Native American spirituality (Duran, Firehammer, & Gonzalez, 2008). Psychologists can also draw on cross-disci- plinary perspectives on psychologies and theologies of liberation written by African American practical theologians like Ashby (2003) and Watkins Ali (1999). Fontenot’s (2002) research on sexual minorities and religious coping illustrates the rich- ness of a cross-disciplinary approach (see Volume 1, Chapter 34, this handbook). Fontenot found that those who replaced traditional heterosexist religious symbols with nontraditional religious symbols or those who rejected heterosexist religious symbols and used a self-directing style of religious coping experienced lower degrees of psychological well- being. Conversely, sexual minority persons who

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Carrie Doehring

400

reconstructed religious symbols traditionally associ- ated with heterosexist religious beliefs and used a collaborative style of religious coping experienced higher degrees of psychological well-being. For example, David, portrayed in the documentary Trembling Before God (Dubowski, 1993), returns to a rabbi in Jerusalem who 25 years earlier had coun- seled him to remain true to his Orthodox Jewish faith by using adversive techniques to inflict physi- cal pain whenever he felt sexual desire for a man. David confronts this learned spiritual teacher with the torment he suffered in following his counsel and how he now affirms both his Orthodox Jewish and gay identity. Then he goes to the Wailing Wall with his partner to tearfully lament the suffering he has endured as a gay Orthodox Jew. He stays in his tra- dition, lives in a committed relationship, and has a collaborative relationship with a God who hears his lament. Fontenot’s research illustrates the need for theologically informed empirical measures of spe- cific beliefs and practices that help people cope with discrimination in religious, spiritual, and psychological ways.

Given the array of psychological and theological perspectives on various kinds of populations that experience stigma, prejudice, and discrimination (gender and sexual minorities, ethical and racial minorities, people with disabilities, mental illness, HIV and AIDS, people of lower socioeconomic classes, people with weight problems, the elderly), there is enormous potential for exploring relation- ships among discrimination, prejudice, and religious and spiritual coping. As Pargament’s (2007) writing on spiritually integrated psychotherapy has illus- trated, there needs to be more direct dialogue between researchers and practitioners—both clinical and spiritual—on the complex role of religion and spirituality in the health and well-being of persons, especially those who cope with stigma, prejudice, and discrimination.

In this chapter, I have attempted to explore the ways religion and spirituality contribute to or coun- teract prejudice, using an integrated paradigm that draws on cross-disciplinary theories about preju- dice, religion, and spirituality; psychological research on religion, spirituality, prejudice, and dis- crimination; and clinical practice. By continually

returning to clinical scenarios, I have illustrated both the challenges and potential of applying an integrated psychological paradigm of religion, spiri- tuality, and prejudice. Finding ways to help people draw on their religion and spirituality to counteract prejudice within themselves and when they are tar- gets of prejudice is profoundly important. To do this complex work and do it well, we need the kind of applied integrated paradigm described in this chap- ter and throughout this volume. In addition, we need to do our own work. We need to recognize when we experience automatic psychological activa- tion of stereotypes, and we need to explore how our journeys—existential, spiritual, or religious— motivate us to do the personal and professional work of counteracting prejudice.

References Aboud, F. E., & Levy, S. R. (2000). Interventions to

reduce prejudice and discrimination in children and adolescents. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 269–293). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Abu-Raiya, H. A., Pargament, K. I., Mahoney, A., & Trevino, K. (2008). When Muslims are perceived as a religious threat: Examining the connection between desecration, religious coping, and anti-Muslim attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 311–325.

Adams, G. (2008). Commemorating Brown: Psychology as a force for liberation. In G. Adams, M. Biernat, N. R. Branscombe, C. S. Crandall, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Commemorating Brown: The social psy- chology of racism and discrimination (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11681-001

Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Allport, G. W. (1966). The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 448–451. doi:10.2307/1384172

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443. doi:10.1037/ h0021212

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why do religious fundamentalists tend to be prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, 17–28. doi:10.1207/ S15327582IJPR1301_03

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

How Religion and Spirituality Contribute to or Counteract Prejudice and Discrimination

401

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113–133. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5

Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2007). A dynamic model of guilt implications for motivation and self-regulation in the context of prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 524–530. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01933.x

Amodio, D. M., & Lieberman, M. D. (2009). Pictures in our heads: Contributions of fMRI to the study of prejudice and stereotyping. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 347–365). New York, NY: Psychological Press.

Anderson, A. K., Christoff, K., Stappen, I., Panitz, D., Ghahremani, D. G., Glover, G., . . . Sobel, N. (2003). Dissociated neural representations of intensity and valence in human olfaction. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 196–202. doi:10.1038/nn1001

Appleby, R. S. (2000). The ambivalence of the sacred: Religion, violence and reconciliation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ashby, H., Jr. (2003). Our home is over Jordan: A Black pastoral theology. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991a). Measuring religion as quest: I. Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 416–429. doi:10.2307/1387277

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991b). Measuring religion as quest: II. Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430–447. doi:10.2307/1387278

Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social psychological perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bierman, A. (2006). Does religion buffer the effects of discrimination on mental health? Differing effects by race. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 551–565. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2006.00327.x

Bowen-Reid, T. L., & Harrell, J. P. (2002). Racist experi- ences and health outcomes: An examination of spiri- tuality as a buffer. Journal of Black Psychology, 28, 18–36. doi:10.1177/0095798402028001002

Brewer, M. B. (2007). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Social categorization, ingroup bias, and out- group prejudice. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 695–715). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Copeland-Linder, N. (2006). Stress among Black women in a South African township: The threat role of reli- gion. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 577–599. doi:10.1002/jcop.20116

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. Y. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),

Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 504–553). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Cunningham, W. A., Nezlek, J. B., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: Revisiting the ideologies of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1332–1346. doi:10.1177/0146167204264654

Devine, P. G., Brodish, A. B., & Vance, S. L. (2005). Self- regulatory processes in interracial interactions: The role of internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & S. M. Laham (Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and unconscious processes (pp. 249–273). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Devine, P. G., & Sharp, L. B. (2009). Automaticity and control in stereotyping and prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyp- ing, and discrimination (pp. 61–87). New York, NY: Psychological Press.

Dubowski, S. S. (Producer/Director). (1993). Trembling before G–d [Motion picture]. United States: New York Video.

Duran, E., Firehammer, J., & Gonzalez, J. (2008). Liberation psychology as the path toward heal- ing cultural wounds. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86, 288–295. doi:10.1002/j.1556- 6678.2008.tb00511.x

Duriez, B. (2004). A research note on the relation between religiosity and racism: The impor- tance of the way in which religious contents are being processed. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 177–191. doi:10.1207/ s15327582ijpr1403_3

Duriez, B., Fontaine, J. R., & Hutsebaut, D. (2000). A further elaboration of the Post-Critical Belief Scale: Evidence for the existence of four differ- ent approaches to religion in Flanders-Belgium. Psychologica Belgica, 40, 153–181.

Ellison, C. G., Musick, M. A., & Henderson, A. K. (2008). Balm in Gilead: Racism, religious involvement, and psychological distress among African-American adults. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47, 291–309. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00408.x

Fontenot, E. (2002). The use of religious resources in response to anti-homosexual religious attitudes and behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 62, 5961.

Greenberg, J., Landau, M., Kosloff, S., & Solomon, S. (2009). How our dreams of death transcendence breed prejudice, stereotyping, and conflict: Terror manage- ment theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of preju- dice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 309–332). New York, NY: Psychological Press.

Hammond, W. P., Banks, K. H., & Mattis, J. S. (2006). Masculine ideology and forgiveness of racial

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Carrie Doehring

402

discrimination among African American men: Direct and interactive relationships. Sex Roles, 55, 679–692. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9123-y

Hunsberger, B., Alisat, S., Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. (1996). Religious fundamentalism and religious doubts: Content, connections, and complex- ity of thinking. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6, 201–220. doi:10.1207/ s15327582ijpr0603_7

Hunsberger, B., & Jackson L. M. (2005). Religion, meaning, and prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 807–826. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00433.x

Hunsberger, B., Owusu, V., & Duck, R. (1999). Religion and prejudice in Ghana and Canada: Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and attitudes toward homosexuals and women. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9, 181–194. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0903_2

Hunter, C. D., & Lewis-Coles, M. E. (2004). Coping with racism: A spirit-based psychological perspective. In J. L. Chin (Ed.), The psychology of prejudice and dis- crimination: Racism in America (Vol. 1., pp. 207–222). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Jagers, R. J., Boykin, A. W., & Smith, T. D. (1994). A measure of spirituality from an Afrocultural perspec- tive. Unpublished manuscript.

Jones, J. (2002). Terror and transformation: The ambiguity of religion in psychoanalytic perspective. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Joseph, J., & Kuo, B. C. (2009). Black Canadians’ coping responses to racial discrimination. Journal of Black Psychology, 35, 78–101. doi:10.1177/0095798 408323384

Laythe, B., Finkel, D. G., Bringle, R. B., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). Religious fundamentalism as a predic- tor of prejudice: A two-component model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 623–635. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00142

Laythe, B., Finkel, D. G., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2001). Predicting prejudice from religious fundamental- ism and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 1–10. doi:10.1111/ 0021-8294.00033

Lewis-Coles, M. E., & Constantine, M. G. (2006). Racism-related stress, Africultural coping, and reli- gious problem-solving among African Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 433–443. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.12.3.433

Mahoney, A., LeRoy, M., Kusner, K., Padgett, E., & Grimes, L. (2013). Addressing parental spiritual- ity as part of the problem and solution in family psychotherapy. In D. F. Walker & W. Hathaway (Eds.), Spiritually oriented interventions in child and adolescent psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Murray-Swank, A., & Murray-Swank, N. (2003). Religion and the sancti- fication of family relationships. Review of Religious Research, 44, 220–236. doi:10.2307/3512384

Major, B. (2006). New perspectives on stigma and psy- chological well-being, In S. Levin & C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psycho- logical perspectives (pp. 193–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mattis, J. S. (1995). Workings of the spirit: Spirituality, meaning construction and coping in the lives of Black women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

McAlister, A., Ama, E., Barroso, C., Peters, R. J., & Kelder, S. (2000). Promoting tolerance and moral engagement through peer modeling. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 363–373. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.6.4.363

McFarland, S. G., & Warren, J. C., Jr. (1992). Religious orientations and selective exposure among funda- mentalist Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 163–174. doi:10.2307/1387006

Moskowitz, G. B., Gollwitzer, P. M., Wasel, W., & Schaal, B. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype acti- vation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 167–184. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.167

Nagda, B., Kim, C., & Truelove, Y. (2004). Learning about difference: learning with others, learning to transgress. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 195–214. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00106.x

Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychother- apy: Understanding and addressing the sacred. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I., Magyar, G. M., & Murray-Swank, N. (2005). The sacred and the search for significance: Religion as a unique process. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 665–687. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00426.x

Pargament, K. I., Trevino, K., Mahoney, A., & Silberman, I. (2007). They killed our Lord: The perception of Jews as desecrators of Christianity as a predictor of anti-Semitism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 143–158. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906. 2007.00347.x

Pedersen, A., Walker, I., & Wise, M. (2005). “Talk does not cook rice”: Beyond antiracism rhetoric to strate- gies for social action. Australian Psychologist, 40, 20–30. doi:10.1080/0005006051233131729

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

How Religion and Spirituality Contribute to or Counteract Prejudice and Discrimination

403

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2005). Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis: Its history and influence. In J. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 262–277). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and exter- nal motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811

Price, E. G., Beach, M. C., Gary, T. L., Robinson, K. A., Gozu, A., & Palacio, A. (2005). A systematic review of the methodological rigor of studies evaluating cultural competence training of health professionals. Academic Medicine, 80, 578–586. doi:10.1097/ 00001888-200506000-00013

Richards, G. (2008). Psychology: The key concepts. Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.

Rowatt, W. C., & Franklin, L. M. (2004). Christian ortho- doxy, religious fundamentalism, and right-wing author- itarianism as predictors of implicit racial prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 125–138. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1402_4

Sheridan, L. P. (2006). Islamophobia pre- and post- September 11th, 2001. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 317–336. doi:10.1177/08862605 05282885

Shorter-Gooden, K. (2004). Multiple resistance strategies: How African American women cope with racism and sexism. Journal of Black Psychology, 30, 406–425. doi:10.1177/0095798404266050

Silberman, I., Higgins, E. T., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Religion and world change: Violence and terrorism versus peace. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 761–784. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00431.x

Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie &

E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emo- tions (pp. 191–208). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Utsey, S. O., Adams, E. P., & Bolden, M. (2000). Development and initial validation of the Africultural Coping Systems Inventory. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 194–215. doi:10.1177/0095798 400026002005

Utsey, S. O., Brown, C., & Bolden, M. (2004). Testing the structural invariance of the Africultural Coping Systems Inventory across three samples of African descent populations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 185–195. doi:10.1177/001316 4403258461

van der Slik, F. W. P., & Konig, R. P. (2006). Orthodox, humanitarian, and science-inspired belief in rela- tion to prejudice against Jews, Muslims, and ethnic minorities: The content of one’s belief does matter. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16, 113–126. doi:10.1207/ s15327582ijpr1602_3

Watkins Ali, C. (1999). Survival and liberation: Pastoral theology in African American context. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.

Whitbeck, L. B., McMorris, B. A., Hoyt, D. R., Stubben, J. D., & LaFramboise, T. (2002). Perceived discrimi- nation, traditional practices, and depressive symp- toms among American Indians in the upper Midwest. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 400–418. doi:10.2307/3090234

Williams, C. B., & Wiggins, M. (2010). Womanist spiri- tuality as a response to the racism-sexism double bind in African American women. Counseling and Values, 54, 175–186. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2010. tb00015.x

Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary views (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .