Jesus made me vote that way.

By, Adam K. Fetterman
It is Election Day 2010 and there are a variety of motivations people have to vote and how to vote. Many are angry and some are anxious and uneasy, according to Holly Bailey. Many conservative voters are angry at the Democrat controlled house and senate. Many liberals are upset about the lack of hope and change promised to them by President Barack Obama, regardless of how many of his promises he has acted on. Regardless of party, many voters are basically upset with the state of the country. For these reasons, people have a motivation to vote and to vote in a certain way. However, these may not be the only things influencing the way they vote.

According to research by Abraham Rutchick (2010), the place in which one votes can have a significant effect on the way one votes. What he found was that when voting in a church or exposed to Christian imagery, people tend to vote more conservatively. For example, people voting in a church tended to vote for conservative candidates and ban same-sex marriages, than those voting in secular locations (Rutchick, 2010). This is a very important finding. Churches are particularly popular polling locations. It has always seemed odd to vote in churches, but until now there has been no reason to not vote in churches. They are in the communities and can hold a lot of people. However, given the evidence of the influence, it seems that voting should be conducted in secular locations, away from the biasing influence of the churches. If not for this reason, then at least of the separation of church and state, even if the reasons are not apparent.

2010: A campaign year driven by conflicted emotions. By, Holly Bailey

Rutchick, A. M. (2010). Deus ex machina: The influence of polling place on voting behavior. Political Psychology, 31, 209-225.

Homer is just like me!

By, Adam K. Fetterman
Catholicism has not had a good last couple years/decades. This has been particularly true recently with the scandals involving the pope and child abuse. So, it would seem like a good idea to take some focus off these situations and lighten things up a bit. This is what they have done recently. According, to the Time website, the Vatican’s official newspaper has declared Homer Simpson as a Catholic. This is odd to most fans because Homer, and the rest of the Simpson flock (minus Lisa who proclaims to be a Buddhist), are clearly and openly protestant. Specifically with Homer, some could probably argue that he is not even a protestant. They use a couple examples of why Homer is a Catholic, but most appear to be reflective of Christianity in general, not to mention that most of the Catholicism references in the show are mocking in nature. Why might someone, or thing, come to such an odd belief, such as Homer Simpson being of their religion?

One possible explanation may come from what is known as the “false consensus effect” (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). According to a review by Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer (1998), this effect is a type of projection in which individuals have a bias to think that others’ traits are similar to their own. So, it may, for whatever motivation, be that the Vatican newspaper writers are projecting their own traits or beliefs on what they perceive as a well liked popular figure, and Homer is definitely that. Another weird thing that people might notice is that Family Guy’s Griffin family is actually Catholic, but the Vatican decided against mentioning them. However, it probably would not be considered a positive to associate oneself with a show as “controversial” as that one.

Before someone comments that the Vatican paper was arguing that Homer represents what a good Catholic should be. This may be so, but that was not clear in the Time piece linked here. Furthermore, one would have to ignore a considerable amount of aspects of the show to consider The Simpsons as reflecting good Catholic values. However, relative to the Griffins in Family Guy, one could see how they would like to associate themselves with the “tamer”, and more loved, Simpsons family. Don’t we all?

“Homer Simpson: A True Catholic?” By Megan Friedman, Time Magazine

Baumeister et al. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66, 1081-1124.

Symbolic immortality and atheism. Part 2 of ‘The consequences of Christopher Hitchens’ unfortunate illness.’

By, Adam K. Fetterman
In my previous post, I focused on how people are reacting to Hitchens’ illness (i.e. prayer for his health and prayer for his suffering). In the current post, I discuss symbolic immortality and how it is manifested in different ways. As noted in the previous post, long time atheist writer and leader Christopher Hitchens has unfortunately been diagnosed with esophageal cancer. While many are praying for him to find a god(s), he maintains steadfast in his atheistic viewpoints. In noting on this topic he told Associated Press that “It’s humanity’s oldest argument. If I played a small part in keeping it going that would be enough for me”. It is apparent that Hitchens is proud to be part of something important. Being part of something important, and being remembered for it, could be considered symbolic immortality. Symbolic immortality has been theorized to be a way to buffer oneself from their fears of death, by making sure one lives on, at least symbolically. Efforts to secure symbolic immortality and manage death concerns can lead to a number of behaviors.

For example, Routledge and Arndt (2007) found that increasing death-thoughts led to increased willingness to self-sacrifice for one’s nation. They conclude that this can be seen as an effort to manage existential anxieties by creating “symbolic identity”. They use these findings to explain why terrorists may commit suicide. Indeed, North Dakota State University graduate student and researcher, Jacob Juhl has found preliminary evidence that “compared to literal immortality [e.g., heaven], symbolic immortality seems to be a stronger means in which religion helps manage concerns about death”. That is, being part of something significant may be more important than living consciously after death. However, symbolic immortality is not remotely religious, as evidenced by Christopher Hitchens’ quote. Therefore, it would seem likely that symbolic immortality is something that all humans strive for, in ways such as keeping a dialogue alive, like Hitchens, or being an amazing musical artist, like Michael Jackson. Additionally, if it is indeed the case that individuals, such as atheists, strive to be remembered and thus should be motivated to do good things, then it is likely that one can indeed be “good without god”.

Special thanks to Jacob Juhl for his input.

Atheist Hitchens skipping prayer day in his honor. By Jay Reeves, Associated Press.

Unanswerable prayers. By Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair

Routledge, C. & Arndt, .J (2007). Self-sacrifice as self-defence: Mortality salience increases efforts to affirm a symbolic immortal self at the expense of the physical self. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 531-541

The consequences of Christopher Hitchens’ unfortunate illness. Part 1

By, Adam K. Fetterman
Christopher Hitchens, author of numerous books regarding the topic of atheism and religion and one of the “Four Horsemen of Atheism”, was diagnosed with esophageal cancer just before starting his latest book tour. There are some noticeable consequences of his diagnosis. One particular consequence of his illness is a national “Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day”. According to Jay Reeves and Hitchens, the origins of this prayer day are not exactly known. However, some may consider it spit in the face. Hitchens does not seem to see it this way, and thanks those who are praying for his good health, but also asserts it will do nothing more than make those praying feel better and if so, that is fine with him. However, according to Hitchens and Reeves, there are three types of prayers going on in his name. First, there are those praying for his health. Second are those praying for him to find god. Which god? It appears mostly the Christian one. Finally, there are the prayers for Hitchens to suffer a painful death, and that the torture continues in hell.

This third type, not only lends credence to ideas put forth about religion by Hitchens and other atheists, but it may also reflect a belief in a just world. Most people believe that things happen for a reason. That is, good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people (Pepitone & L’Armand, 1998). According to Pepitone and L’Armand, the strongest belief comes with the former, but there is still evidence that people believe in that latter. These beliefs are particularly strong amongst the religious (Pepitone & L’Armand, 1998). Perhaps because they believe that a god has a plan or has control the world. Therefore, it is not entirely surprising that web commentors and letter-writers are sending Hitchens messages that he is getting his “just desserts” and other horrendous diatribes. As a side note, a lot of these comments appear to be coming from those with a Christian background, of which many Christians would prefer to disassociate with. With that in mind, one may notice that this is not the way Christians ought to act. One possible explanation is that, when compared to Jewish individuals, Protestants view belief as more important than practice (Cohen, Siegel, & Rozin, 2002), though this explanation is merely speculation.

At any rate, Christopher Hitchens, as always, may the science of medicine keep you comfortable and with us for a long time to come.

-In two weeks: Part 2. Symbolic immortality.

Atheist Hitchens skipping prayer day in his honor. By Jay Reeves, Associated Press.

Unanswerable prayers. By Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair

Pepitone, A. & L’Armand, K. (1998). The justice and injustice of life events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 581-597.

Cohen, A. B., Siegel, J. I., & Rozin, P. (2003). Faith versus practice: Different bases for religiosity by Jews and Protestants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 287-295

Ground Zero and national identification.

By, Adam K. Fetterman

The so called “Ground Zero Mosque” has stirred a quite a bit of debate in the recent months. False accusations, hyperbole, and real concerns have been voiced from every corner of the nation, as well as violence and a planned Koran burning. What people are upset about is that by building this Muslim cultural center near the site of the 9/11 attacks, Muslims are spitting in the face of the US. Unfortunately, a point that many people miss is that American Muslims were also victims of the attacks on 9/11, as they are Americans. While many American Muslims greatly condemn terrorism and embrace interfaith communities, they still wonder if they will ever belong. According to Laurie Goodstein, these feelings are stronger than ever. In regards to the cultural center near ground zero, it is likely that the opponents see it as a conflicting symbol to the national symbol of ground-zero, which is leading to the greater division of the real or imagined ingroup and outgroup.

According to Butz (2009), national symbols increase national identification and promote unity “at an unconscious level”, which can lead to increased outgroup hostility.  Specifically, he states that these symbols may “tighten the boundaries drawn between ingroups and outgroups” (p. 786). After the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers, the site of this tragedy has become like a national symbol. Since these attacks happened at the hands of Muslim extremists, the line that this specific national symbol has unfortunately seemed to have drawn is one between Muslims and the United States. However, it would be helpful, and possibly promote a bit more unity, if those that view this site as a national symbol would recognize that Muslims are a part of this nation as well. And, as Americans, they have the same feelings of national identification.

‘American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?’ By, Laurie Goodstein – New York Times

‘N.Y. man charged with stabbing cab driver for being Muslim’ – USA Today

‘Florida Christian church to burn Koran with protection of a Christian militia’ – Tampa Bay Examiner

Butz D. A. (2009). National symbols as agents of psychological and social change. Political Psychology, 30, 779–804.

Dining with death

By, Adam K. Fetterman
Similar to my previous piece regarding atheism, vegetarians/vegans also get a strange reputation that does not always seem to match their experiences. For example, like the atheists, vegetarians/vegans are often accused of being arrogant and self-righteous. One would think that all vegetarians/vegans are running around telling people how to eat. Of course, there are these vegetarians/vegans (e.g. PETA), but they are a vocal minority. In actuality, it is my experience that vegetarians/vegans often try to keep quiet about their food choices for fear of ridicule. In conversations with fellow vegetarians/vegans, the same story emerges. Out to dinner with friends or family (even very open-minded friends) and a meat-eating friend or family member will bring up the vegetarian’s diet. Comments include, but are not limited to “I could never stop eating meat”, “are you sure you are getting enough protein”, “vegetarianism isn’t natural”, and my personal favorite “I didn’t climb my way to the top of the food chain to eat rabbit food”. So, it would appear, at least anecdotally, that most vegetarians and vegans are not arrogant jerks, and just want to eat their food in peace.

Similar to atheism, Terror Management Theory (TMT) would explain that vegetarians/vegans may come to be derogated by meat-eaters because they challenge a long held world-view that animals are to be eaten. This challenge may increase existential threat in which world views are defended (Greenberg & Kosloff, 2008), hence some of the comments recalled above and the links below. However, TMT can go even further to provide an idea of why vegetarians/vegans experience what they do. Another thing that can cause existential threat is thoughts of creatureliness (Cox, Goldenberg, Pyszczynski, & Weise, 2007). According to Cox and colleagues (2007), when reminded that humans are similar to other animals, people’s death thoughts increase. And, according to research on TMT, death thoughts lead to out-group derogation (Greenberg & Kosloff, 2008). Therefore, it is possible that when vegetarians/vegans are eating with meat-eaters, the meat-eaters are reminded of their creatureliness because vegetarians/vegans automatically remind them that they are eating other animals. If so, this may explain why so many vegetarians/vegans have the same experiences when dining with their meat-eating friends and family.

A blog entitled ‘The arrogance of veganism’ by Michael Ruhlman

A blog entitled ‘Something is wrong vegans’ by Steve Mooradian

Cox, C. R. et al. (2006). Disgust, creatureliness, and the accessibility of death-related thoughts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 494-507

Greenberg, J. & Kosloff, S. (2008). Terror Management Theory: Implications for understanding prejudice, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, and political attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1881-1894

Are atheists really arrogant jerks?

By, Adam K. Fetterman
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Chrisopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, and atheists in general, have a reputation of being arrogant and angry. It is likely that some atheists deserve this reputation, even some mentioned above. However, the evidence for the reputation are often misunderstandings, mischaracterizations of context, and most often “heard it from someone else”. For example, one of the most prominent atheists, Richard Dawkins, is often characterized as an angry and inflammatory prick. He may in fact be such a person, but most of the evidence is unfounded, such as out of context quotations, and again, word of mouth. Therefore, any atheist looking forward to an entertaining tongue lashing by purchasing one of his publications may be disappointed, not by the content, but by the lack of “prickishness”. The same goes for many atheists. Ask any atheist how people react to him/her saying they do not believe in a god or defending their beliefs, and you will often hear they are accused of being rude or insensitive. All the while, think of how often one hears a religious individual referring to their faith (e.g. thanking God, asking for prayers for the sick, “blessing” people etc.). So why is it that atheists get this reputation and not the religious?

Terror Management Theory (TMT) is a social psychological theory explaining that since humans have awareness of their mortality, they have bouts with existential terror and this is reflected in their behavior. According to Greenberg and Kosloff (2008), when someone has a differing worldview, one may respond with increased prejudice, stereotyping, and anger. They indicate that this is because worldviews (including religion) are vital to managing existential threat, and they must defend them in any way possible. Atheists are a noted minority. They, therefore, challenge widespread worldviews and compound it by challenging a specific worldview (i.e. religion) that is a particularly strong way people deal with existential threat. It is likely that this is the reason atheists have gained their reputation, regardless of if they are. That is, it may be the way the religious deal with perceived threat.

-To Christopher Hitchens: May the science of medicine keep you with us for many more years.

Examples of how atheists are viewed:
Anatomy of an angry atheist: Part 1. By, Alan Lurie – Huffington Post

Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett: Evangelical atheists? By, Reza Aslan – Washington Post: Guest Voices

TMT and it’s effects on prejudice, stereotypes and anger:
Greenberg, J. & Kosloff, S. (2008). Terror Management Theory: Implications for understanding prejudice, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, and political attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1881-1894

Are immigrants contaminating Arizona?

By, Adam K. Fetterman
As tensions mount surrounding Arizona’s controversial immigration law, it creeps closer and closer to coming to fruition. Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers of the Associated Press indicate that the law comes in response to growing anger over illegal immigrants causing problems within the state. This is a common argument amongst those that want a tough response to illegal immigration and want to make it more difficult to enter the country. As Billeaud and Myers noted one of community member “He regularly depicts illegal immigration as an ‘invasion’”. On a similar note, it can even be depicted as a contamination.

Along these lines, Landau, Sullivan, and Greenberg (2009) found that when made aware of bodily contamination, people judged immigration more harshly. This type of finding comes from a body of metaphor and embodied cognition work, gaining ground in social psychology. According to metaphor theory, we think about the world around us with thoughts that relate to our physical or bodily experiences. Therefore, in this particular paper, Landau and his colleagues (2009) found that people look at their country like a part of their body, and immigrants are equated to contaminators. When adding to the issue “illegal” immigration and a perceived increase in criminal activity, one can see where the tension in Arizona comes from. However, an issue can arise if these metaphoric or embodied cognition biases individuals’ views of the real problems and shortsighted policies are put in place. This in turn leads to violations of civil rights and prejudice.

Ariz. law comes after years of mounting anger. By, Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers

Landau et al. (2009). Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20, 1421-1427.

Protecting the powerful

By, Adam K. Fetterman
Minnesota representative Michelle Bachmann has had her share of questionable moments in the past. For example, she once referred to President Obama and his wife as “anti-American”. She also seems to side with the powerful. The most recent example of this comes in regards to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Because of the lack of safety measures, BP has been expected to take responsibility and face the consequences of the disaster. While most people are concerned about the victims that have lost their livelihoods, Michelle Bachmann seems to be worried about BP and has warned that BP should be wary not to be “fleeced and ma[d]e chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest”. She went on to say “The other thing we have to remember is that Obama loves to make evil whatever company it is that he wants to get more power from.” These comments appear to indicate that Rep. Bachmann is more interested in protecting the oil company, than the people suffering from the spill.

System justification theory is a process in which individuals tend to justify the status quo, regardless of the fairness of the practices (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). For example, one may defend unfair actions or even blame (Napier, Mandisodza, Andersen, & Jost, 2006) the less fortunate in order to maintain the view that the current system is fair and/or to maintain one’s own status. Therefore, perhaps Rep. Bachmann feels that BP needs protection because it may challenge the current power hierarchy. As mentioned in her second quote above, she feels President Obama “wants to get more power from” BP. It may also be that she is worried that if the government is too hard on BP that it will lead to significant change in the way the government regulates powerful companies. Or maybe her only worry is that this will result in “paying $9 for a gallon of gas“. Either way, it seems she is worried more about the perpetrators than the victims.

“Michele Bachmann Channels McCarthy: Obama “Very Anti-American,” Congressional Witch Hunt Needed” By, Sam Stein – Huffington Post

“Bachmann to BP: Don’t ‘be chumps’” By, David Weigel – Right Now – Washington Post

Jost et al. (2004). A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.

Napier et al. (2006). System Justification in Responding to the Poor and Displaced in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 6, 57-73.

Guns and aggression

By, Adam K. Fetterman
A Supreme Court decision once again sparks debate of gun control. The Court decided that citizens have the right to keep guns in all states and cities in the United States challenging some strict gun bans, like those in the Chicago area, according to the Associated Press. Guns are one of the hot-button issues that always seem to lead to great division. Some proponents argue that it is their right to own and carry guns and therefore, want to exercise that right, while others proclaim they want guns for fear of victimization. Opponents of guns argue that guns cause more harm than good and sometimes fear the people that want guns for protection.

While there are some anecdotal instances when citizens carrying guns have resulted in positive outcomes, these are quite rare. However, there has been research on the negative effects of guns. For example, Klinesmith, Kasser, and McAndrew (2006) found that interacting with guns led to increases in testosterone and aggressive behavior in males. While the aggressive behavior in the experiment, adding hot-sauce to a cup of water, is not all that reflective of real-world aggression, the effects show some increase in the willingness to harm others. There are probably not many people that would promote getting rid of guns altogether, however, some questions need to be further researched. For instance, should states and cities be able to ban guns if the area is deemed particularly aggressive? What type of people cause a threat to safety if they have access to guns? And on the other side, what are the benefits to the presence of guns?

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide, by Mark Sherman – Associated Press

Klinesmith et al. (2006). Guns, Testosterone, and Aggression: An Experimental Test of a Mediational Hypothesis. Psychological Science, 17, 568-571.