Prior research has conceptualized and measured religious intolerance as occurring towards specific religions rather than all religious outgroups. We examined the factor structure and construct validity of the Interfaith Intolerance Scale (IIS), a measure of general ingroup religious bias and disregard for other religions. In study 1 (N = 403), an exploratory factor analysis yielded a three factor solution: Lack of reciprocal understanding, interfaith superiority, and interfaith discomfort. Internal consistency was good for two factors and limited for one factor. All factors were positively associated with conservative political ideology. In study 2 (N = 1,493), a confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor model, and factors showed acceptable to good internal consistency. Evidence of construct validity was demonstrated to varying extents across factors through their relationships with conservative political ideology and dual-process constructs (need for affect, need for cognition, and empathy). Implications for measurement and theories of interfaith intolerance are discussed.
Abu KhalafN.WoolweaverA. B.Reynoso MarmolejosR.LittleG. A.BurnettK.EspelageD. L. (2023). The impact of Islamophobia on Muslim students: A systematic review of the literature. School Psychology Review, 52(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2022.2075710
2.
AltemeyerB.HunsbergerB. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5
3.
AosvedA. C.LongP. J. (2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55(7), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9101-4
4.
AosvedA. C.LongP. J.VollerE. K. (2009). Measuring sexism, racism, sexual prejudice, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance: The intolerant schema measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(10), 2321–2354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00528.x
ArceneauxK.Vander WielenR. J. (2013). The effects of need for cognition and need for affect on partisan evaluations. Political Psychology, 34(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00925.x
7.
ArevaloM.BrownsteinN. C.WhitingJ.MeadeC. D.GwedeC. K.VadaparampilS. T.TilleryK. J.IslamJ. Y.GiulianoA. R.ChristyS. M. (2022). Strategies and lessons learned during cleaning of data from research panel participants: Cross-sectional web-based health behavior survey study. JMIR Formative Research, 6(6), Article e35797. https://doi.org/10.2196/35797
8.
BadaanV.JostJ. T. (2020). Conceptual, empirical, and practical problems with the claim that intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination are equivalent on the political left and right. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.007
9.
BanakouD.HanumanthuP. D.SlaterM. (2016). Virtual embodiment of white people in a black virtual body leads to a sustained reduction in their implicit racial bias. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, Article 601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00601
10.
BartonB.CurrierA. (2020). Not in our community: Queer women challenging religious homophobia in rural Kentucky. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 24, 186–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2019.1677080
11.
BobbaB.CrocettiE. (2022). “I feel you!”: The role of empathic competences in reducing ethnic prejudice among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(10), 1970–1982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01650-0
12.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 1–66). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.002
13.
ByrneB. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Routledge.
14.
CabeldueM. K.CramerR. J.KehnA.CorsbyJ.AnastasiJ. S. (2018). Measuring attitudes about hate: Development of the Hate Crimes Belief Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 3656–3685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516636391
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.KaoC. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
17.
CárdabaM.BriñolP.HorcajoJ.PettyR. E. (2013). The effect of need for cognition on the stability of prejudiced attitudes toward South American immigrants. Psicothema, 25(1), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2012.107
18.
ChalmersJ.WoodfordL.SuttonR. M. (2024). Punishing women for miscarriage: The role of political orientation and hostile sexism. Sex Roles, 90(5), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01467-0
19.
ChambersJ. R.SchlenkerB. R.CollissonB. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612447820
20.
ClarkC. J.LiuB. S.WinegardB. M.DittoP. H. (2019). Tribalism is human nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(6), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419862289
21.
CramerR. J.KehnA.PenningtonC. R.WechslerH. J.ClarkJ. W.NagleJ. (2013). An examination of sexual orientation- and transgender-based hate crimes in the post-Matthew Shepard era. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031404
22.
CramerR. J.LaxtonK. L.ChandlerJ. F.KehnA.BateB. P.ClarkJ. W. (2017a). Political identity, type of victim, and hate crime-related beliefs as predictors of views concerning hate crime penalty enhancement laws. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 17, 262–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12140
23.
CramerR. J.WevodauA. L.GardnerB. O.BrysonC. N. (2017b). A validation study of the Need for Affect Questionnaire–Short Form in legal contexts. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1205076
24.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414
25.
CrosbyJ. W.VarelaJ. G. (2014). Preferences for religious help-seeking: Racial and gender differences, interfaith intolerance, and defensive theology. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 17(2), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2013.784900
26.
DavisC. H.KrafftJ.HicksE. T.LevinM. E. (2021). The role of psychological inflexibility and perspective taking in anti-racism and anti-sexism. Personality and Individual Differences, 175, 110724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110724
27.
DavisM. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
28.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.44.1.113
29.
DeVellisR. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
30.
DishaI.CavendishJ. C.KingR. D. (2011). Historical events and spaces of hate: Hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims in post-9/11 America. Social Problems, 58(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2011.58.1.21
31.
El-HaqM. M. G.AbdelazizH. H.MohamedA. A. (2016). When every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in hell: The relationship between religious fundamentalism and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.022
32.
EndersC. K. (2017). Multiple imputation as a flexible tool for missing data handling in clinical research. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.008
FanX.ThompsonB.WangL. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 56–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540119
35.
FazioR. H.Towles-SchwenT. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 97–116). Guilford.
FrimerJ. A.SkitkaL. J.MotylM. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003
38.
GodfreyS.RichmanC. L.WithersT. N. (2000). Reliability and validity of a new scale to measure prejudice: The GRISMS. Current Psychology, 19(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-000-1000-1
39.
GoplenJ.PlantE. A. (2015). A religious worldview: Protecting one’s meaning system through religious prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1474–1487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215599761
40.
HillE. D.CohenA. B.TerrellH. K.NagoshiC. T. (2010). The role of social cognition in the religious fundamentalism-prejudice relationship. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(4), 724–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01542.x
41.
HodsonG.DubeB.ChomaB. L. (2015). Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG-DS)?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(3), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12281
42.
HoganD. E.MallottM. (2005). Changing racial prejudice through diversity education. Journal of College Student Development, 46(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0015
43.
HoyleR. H. (Ed.). (2023). Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
44.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
45.
JacksonL. M.HunsbergerB. (1999). An intergroup perspective on religion and prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.2307/1387609
46.
JohnsonM. E.BremsC.Alford-KeatingP. (1997). Personality correlates of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 34(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v34n01_05
47.
JohnstonM. P. (2014). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619–626.
48.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.SullowayF. J.Kruglanski ArieW. (2018). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. In KruglanskiA. W. (Ed.), The motivated mind: The selected works of Arie W. Kruglanski (1st ed., pp. 129–204). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315175867
49.
JostJ. T.NapierJ. L.ThorisdottirH.GoslingS. D.PalfaiT. P.OstafinB. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservativism or ideological extremity?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 989–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301028
50.
KossowskaM.SekerdejM. (2015). Searching for certainty: Religious beliefs and intolerance toward value-violating groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 72–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.053
51.
KteilyN. S.BrandtM. J. (2025). Ideology: Psychological similarities and differences across the ideological spectrum reexamined. Annual Review of Psychology, 76(1), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020124-115253
52.
LeinerD. J. (2019). Too fast, too straight, too weird: Non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Survey Research Methods, 13(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.18148/SRM/2019.V13I3.7403
53.
LeoneL.ChirumboloA. (2008). Conservatism as motivated avoidance of affect: Need for affect scales predict conservatism measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(3), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.08.001
54.
LevinM. E.LuomaJ. B.VilardagaR.LillisJ.NoblesR.HayesS. C. (2016). Examining the role of psychological inflexibility, perspective taking, and empathic concern in generalized prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(3), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12355
55.
LimonM.GhaneaN.PowerH. (2016). Fighting religious intolerance and discrimination: The UN account. Religion & Human Rights, 11(1), 21–65. https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-12341295
56.
MaioG. R.EssesV. M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69(4), 583–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.694156
57.
MalcomZ. T.WengerM. R.LantzB. (2023). Politics or prejudice? Separating the influence of political affiliation and prejudicial attitudes in determining support for hate crime law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 29(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000350
58.
MiklikowskaM. (2018). Empathy trumps prejudice: The longitudinal relation between empathy and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 54(4), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000474
59.
NieF. (2024). Is Asian hate just about race? Religious discrimination and smoking among Asian and Asian American adults in the USA. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-01941-1
60.
O’ConnorB. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402.
61.
OhS. Y.BailensonJ.WeiszE.ZakiJ. (2016). Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.007
62.
OnraetE.Van HielA.De KeersmaeckerJ.FontaineJ. R. J. (2017). The relationship of trait emotional intelligence with right-wing attitudes and subtle racial prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.017
63.
PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 224-245). Sage.
PrusaczykE.HodsonG. (2020). The roles of political conservatism and binary gender beliefs in predicting prejudices toward gay men and people who are transgender. Sex Roles, 82(7–8), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01069-1
66.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
67.
SamariG.AlcalaH. E.SharifM. Z. (2018). Islamaphobia, health, and public health: A systematic literature review. American Journal of Public Health, 108, e1–e9. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304402
68.
SchmittT. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653
69.
SegerC. R.BanerjiI.ParkS. H.SmithE. R.MackieD. M. (2017). Specific emotions as mediators of the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice: Findings across multiple participant and target groups. Cognition and Emotion, 31(5), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1182893
70.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226
71.
SwartH.HewstoneM.ChristO.VociA. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A three-wave longitudinal study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1221–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024450
72.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.
73.
TamK.-P.AuA.LeungA. K.-Y. (2008). Attributionally more complex people show less punitiveness and racism. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1074–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.11.002
74.
TerrizziJ. A.ShookN. J.VentisW. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024
75.
TinsleyH. E. A.TinselyD. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414
76.
van der ToornJ.JostJ. T.PackerD. J.NoorbaloochiS.Van BavelJ. J. (2017). In defense of tradition: Religiosity, conservatism, and opposition to same-sex marriage in North America. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(10), 1455–1468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217718523
77.
VangZ. M.HouF.ElderK. (2019). Perceived religious discrimination, religiosity, and life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(6), 1913–1932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0032-x
78.
van ProoijenJ.-W.KuijperS. M. H. C. (2020). A comparison of extreme religious and political ideologies: Similar worldviews but different grievances. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, Article 109888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109888
79.
VarelaJ. G.GonzalezE.ClarkJ. W.CramerR. J.CrosbyJ. W. (2013). Development and preliminary validation of the Negative Attitudes Towards Immigrants Scale. Journal of Latino/a Psychology, 1(3), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033707
80.
VartanianL. R.TrewarthaT.VanmanE. J. (2016). Disgust predicts prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with obesity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(6), 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12370
WilsonM. S.SibleyC. G. (2013). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 34(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00929.x
83.
WirtzC.Van Der PligtJ.DoosjeB. (2016). Negative attitudes toward Muslims in The Netherlands: The role of symbolic threat, stereotypes, and moral emotions. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000126
84.
YuC.-L.ChouT.-L. (2018). A dual route model of empathy: A neurobiological prospective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2212. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02212
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
