Nonreligious individuals stereotype Christians as unscientific and see Christianity and science as conflicting. The present studies examined how perceptions of incompatibility between Christianity and science influence nonreligious individuals’ stereotypes of Christians in science in the US context. We measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2) participants’ beliefs about the compatibility or incompatibility of Christianity and science. In Study 1 (N = 365), nonreligious participants (n = 214), more so than Christian participants (n = 151), perceived Christianity and science as incompatible, which in turn predicted perceptions of Christians as less intelligent and less scientifically able. In Study 2 (N = 799; 520 Christians, 279 nonreligious), manipulating perceived Christianity-science compatibility reduced negative perceptions of Christians’ scientific ability and general intellect among nonreligious participants. Implications for mitigating negative stereotypes of Christians in science, increasing Christians’ representation in scientific fields, and improving relations between Christians and nonreligious groups are discussed.
BakerJO (2012a) Perceptions of science and American secularism. Sociological Perspectives55(1): 167–188.
3.
BakerJO (2012b) Public perceptions of incompatibility between “science and religion.”Public Understanding of Science21(3): 340–353.
4.
BarnesMEDunlopHMSinatraGMHendrixTMZhengYBrownellSE (2020a) “Accepting evolution means you can’t believe in god”: Atheistic perceptions of evolution among college biology students. CBE: Life Sciences Education19(2): 21.
5.
BarnesMEMaasSARobertsJABrownellSE (2021) Christianity as a concealable stigmatized identity (CSI) among biology graduate students. CBE: Life Sciences Education20(1): 9.
6.
BarnesMETruongJMGrunspanDZBrownellSE (2020b) Are scientists biased against Christians? Exploring real and perceived bias against Christians in academic biology. PLoS ONE15(1): e0226826.
7.
ChengZHPaganoLAJrShariffA (2019) The development, validation, and clinical implications of the Microaggressions Against Religious Individuals Scale (MARIS). Psychology of Religion and Spirituality11(4): 327–338.
8.
DawkinsR (2006) The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
9.
DevinePGForscherPSCoxWTLKaatzASheridanJCarnesM (2017) A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology73: 211–215.
10.
DraperJW (1875) History of the Confliction between Science and Religion. New York, NY: Appleton.
11.
DuckittJMphuthingT (1998) Group identification and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74(1): 80–85.
12.
EcklundEHScheitleCP (2017) Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
EcklundEHJohnsonDRVaidyanathanBMatthewsKRWLewisSWThomsonRAJr, et al. (2019) Secularity and Science: What Scientists around the World Really Think about Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
EvansJH (2013) The growing social and moral conflict between conservative Protestantism and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion52(2): 368–385.
15.
EvansJH (2018) Morals Not Knowledge: Recasting the Contemporary U.S. Conflict between Religion and Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16.
FaulFErdfelderEBuchnerALangA-G (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods41(4): 1149–1160.
17.
HayesAF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach, 2nd edn.New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
HayhoeDBloomMAWebbBS (2019) Changing evangelical minds on climate change. Environmental Research Letters14(2): 024016.
19.
LegareCHEvansEMRosengrenKSHarrisPL (2012) The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development. Child Development83(3): 779–793.
20.
LewandowskiT (2013) Kansas’s twenty-first-century monkey trials and tribulations: An examination of the state board of education’s continuing evolution vs. creationism controversies and the implications for science. International Journal of Arts and Sciences6(4): 437–449.
21.
LongestKCUeckerJE (2021) It all depends on what you want to believe: How young adults navigate religion and science. Review of Religious Research63: 1–21.
22.
McPhetresJJongJZuckermanM (2021) Religious Americans have less positive attitudes toward science, but this does not extend to other cultures. Social Psychological and Personality Science12(4): 528–536.
23.
O’BrienTLNoyS (2021) Threatening morality: Religious and political opposition to science in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion60(3): 628–644.
PrestonJEpleyN (2009) Science and God: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology45(1): 238–241.
27.
RiosK (2021) Examining Christians’ reactions to reminders of religion-science conflict: Stereotype threat vs. disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin47(3): 441–454.
28.
RiosKAveyardM (2019) Science-religion compatibility beliefs across Middle Eastern and American young adult samples: The role of cross-cultural exposure. Public Understanding of Science28(8): 949–957.
29.
RiosKChengZHTottonRRShariffAF (2015) Negative stereotypes cause Christians to underperform in and disidentify with science. Social Psychological and Personality Science6(8): 959–967.
30.
ScheitleCPDabbsE (2021) Religiosity and identity interference among graduate students in the sciences. Social Science Research93: 102503.
31.
ScheitleCPEcklundEH (2017) The influence of science popularizers on the public’s view of religion and science: An experimental assessment. Public Understanding of Science26(1): 25–39.
32.
ScheitleCPJohnsonDREcklundEH (2018) Scientists and religious leaders compete for cultural authority of science. Public Understanding of Science27(1): 59–75.
33.
SharpCLeichtCRiosKZarzecznaNJElsdon-BakerF (2021) Religious diversity in science: Stereotypical and counter-stereotypical social identities. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Epub ahead of print 20July. DOI: 10.1177/1368430220987598.
34.
SilverCFColemanTJIIIHoodRWJrHolcombeJM (2014) The six types of nonbelief: A qualitative and quantitative study of type and narrative. Mental Health, Religion & Culture17(10): 990–1001.
35.
SimpsonARiosK (2019) Is science for atheists? Perceived threat to religious cultural authority explains US Christians’ distrust in secularized science. Public Understanding of Science28(7): 740–758.
SpencerSJZannaMPFongGT (2005) Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology89(6): 845–851.
38.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: WorchelSAustinEG (eds) Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn.Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.
39.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review90: 293–315.
40.
UnsworthAVoasD (2021) The Dawkins effect? Celebrity scientists, (non)religious publics and changed attitudes to evolution. Public Understanding of Science30(4): 434–454.
41.
VaidyanathanBJohnsonDRPrickettPJEcklundEH (2016) Rejecting the conflict narrative: American Jewish and Muslim views on science and religion. Social Compass63(4): 478–496.
42.
Van CappellenPLaBouffJP (2022) Prejudice toward Christians and atheists among members of nonreligious groups: Attitudes, behaviors, and mechanisms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations25(2): 3–25.
43.
WhiteAD (1896) A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New York, NY: Appleton.
44.
YsseldykRMathesonKAnismanH (2010) Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review14(1): 60–71.
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.
