Cts of different types of religious primes across 92 studies and fpsyg.2015.01865 reported a moderately sized average effect of g = .40 (although for a PinometostatMedChemExpress EPZ-5676 recent critique of this analysis, see [62]). In the subsequent sections we discuss possible explanations for both the former and the latter, as well as the possible (although somewhat unlikely) gender-moderated priming effect documented in study 1. Finally, we also discuss the implications of these findings for future work in the area of religious priming.Overt versus Covert Measurement of Dependent VariablesOne possible explanation for the lack of observed effects relates to our adoption of attitudinal dependent variables. One issue with research on intergroup attitudes is tendency for individuals to respond in a socially desirable fashion, especially if they hold views which are considered politically incorrect by the majority. As such, negative attitudes towards minorities are often underestimated by more traditional, overt attitudinal measures [63], and discrepancies are often found between implicit and explicit measures of racism [64] and other forms of ABT-737 chemical information prejudice [65]. In addition to the obvious benefits of examining the effects of religious primes on actual behavior, one of the reasons that researchers frequently utilize behavioral measures is that the demand characteristics of these paradigms are relatively mild. Compared to a traditional overt attitudinal measure in which the participant is explicitly asked to indicate how much they like or dislike a certain social group, behavioral measures are often more subtle, involving the selective allocation of resources in economic games (e.g. [23]) where the group membership of the target is manipulated without them ever being explicitly referred to as ingroup or outgroup members. While people may be reluctant to endorse prejudicial attitudes because of concerns over the social desirability of their responses, prosocial actions can be framed more ambiguously (as in the prisoner’s dilemma), meaning that the participants’ may be willing to willing to favor ingroup members over outgroup members when it is not immediately apparent that their actions reflect this tendency. Although such an explanation of our null findings for is possible, it seems unlikely for several reasons. Firstly, significant effects of religious primes on self-reported attitudes towards both ingroup and outgroup members have previously been documented in several studies [27, 28]. Secondly, Shariff and colleagues [61] reported that the average effect size reported in religious priming studies that adopted self-report measures of religious prosociality were significantly larger than those adopting behavioral measures, a finding that casts doubt on the notion that behavioral measures may be more malleable and hence better able to detect the effects of religious primes. Thirdly, the attitudinal measures adopted in the present studies were not really overt, in that target group membership was manipulated in a way that was not immediately apparent to the participants. While responses to the funneled debrief questions in both study 1 and study 2 indicated 17470919.2015.1029593 that a small minority of participants (7 in study 1, 13 in study 2) correctly surmised that they were being asked to indicate their attitudes towards members of certain social groups, these cases were highly infrequent. Given the semi-implicit nature of our attitude measures and the well-documented susceptibility of even explicit attitude m.Cts of different types of religious primes across 92 studies and fpsyg.2015.01865 reported a moderately sized average effect of g = .40 (although for a recent critique of this analysis, see [62]). In the subsequent sections we discuss possible explanations for both the former and the latter, as well as the possible (although somewhat unlikely) gender-moderated priming effect documented in study 1. Finally, we also discuss the implications of these findings for future work in the area of religious priming.Overt versus Covert Measurement of Dependent VariablesOne possible explanation for the lack of observed effects relates to our adoption of attitudinal dependent variables. One issue with research on intergroup attitudes is tendency for individuals to respond in a socially desirable fashion, especially if they hold views which are considered politically incorrect by the majority. As such, negative attitudes towards minorities are often underestimated by more traditional, overt attitudinal measures [63], and discrepancies are often found between implicit and explicit measures of racism [64] and other forms of prejudice [65]. In addition to the obvious benefits of examining the effects of religious primes on actual behavior, one of the reasons that researchers frequently utilize behavioral measures is that the demand characteristics of these paradigms are relatively mild. Compared to a traditional overt attitudinal measure in which the participant is explicitly asked to indicate how much they like or dislike a certain social group, behavioral measures are often more subtle, involving the selective allocation of resources in economic games (e.g. [23]) where the group membership of the target is manipulated without them ever being explicitly referred to as ingroup or outgroup members. While people may be reluctant to endorse prejudicial attitudes because of concerns over the social desirability of their responses, prosocial actions can be framed more ambiguously (as in the prisoner’s dilemma), meaning that the participants’ may be willing to willing to favor ingroup members over outgroup members when it is not immediately apparent that their actions reflect this tendency. Although such an explanation of our null findings for is possible, it seems unlikely for several reasons. Firstly, significant effects of religious primes on self-reported attitudes towards both ingroup and outgroup members have previously been documented in several studies [27, 28]. Secondly, Shariff and colleagues [61] reported that the average effect size reported in religious priming studies that adopted self-report measures of religious prosociality were significantly larger than those adopting behavioral measures, a finding that casts doubt on the notion that behavioral measures may be more malleable and hence better able to detect the effects of religious primes. Thirdly, the attitudinal measures adopted in the present studies were not really overt, in that target group membership was manipulated in a way that was not immediately apparent to the participants. While responses to the funneled debrief questions in both study 1 and study 2 indicated 17470919.2015.1029593 that a small minority of participants (7 in study 1, 13 in study 2) correctly surmised that they were being asked to indicate their attitudes towards members of certain social groups, these cases were highly infrequent. Given the semi-implicit nature of our attitude measures and the well-documented susceptibility of even explicit attitude m.
