Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, I want to explore empirical data to assess if academic psychologists have a significant level of anti-Christian bias. Second, I want to use qualitative work to gain some insight into the attitudes psychologists have toward Christians. Two quantitative data sets indicate that academic psychologists have less warm feelings toward conservative Christians and are more willing to state that they would not hire conservative Christians compared to their attitudes toward other religious groups. Qualitative data indicated that compared to other social scientists, psychologists were more concerned about inequality and envisioned conservative Protestants as extremists. Psychologists are not necessarily anti-religious but have hostility against perceived characteristics tied to conservative Christians. This bias makes it harder for conservative Christians to feel they have a place in academic psychology and to trust the research done in this discipline.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is plausible to define conservatism in Christianity along a variety of dimensions (theologically, politically, denominationally). My preference is to look at a theological definition as theological distinctions are more innate to religious traditions than political differences and denominational effects within the Christian tradition has waned over the past few decades (Wuthnow, 1989). To this end, it is worth considering the famous Bebbington Quadrilateral which bases traditional Christianity on theological beliefs surrounding proselytization, beliefs about the Bible and the atonement provided by Christ (Larsen & Treier, 2007). A good deal of recent research has differentiated conservative Christians from other Christians by theological measures such as belief the Bible as the inerrant word of God (Freeman & Houston, 2011; Hunter, 1983; Sherkat & Darnell, 1999; Sherkat et al., 2011). Furthermore, academics have shown more hostility toward conservative Christians than political conservatives (G. Yancey, 2011), and thus it is likely the theological, rather than political components of conservative Christians that trigger such antipathy. To this end, as I talk about conservative Christians I am defining such individuals with conservative theological beliefs such as Biblical inerrancy, particularism, and acceptance of moral absolutes.
- 2.
It may be argued that I should not dismiss potential Islamophobia since Muslims have also been seen as anti-intellectual and intolerant. Yet as I pointed out, Christians are the group with the numbers of adherents to politically threaten the potentially progressive aims of academics. Furthermore, research has indicated that education is negatively correlated with animosity toward Muslims (Ciftci, 2012; G. Yancey & Williamson, 2014). Given that I am looking at a very highly educated population, it seems unlikely that animosity toward Muslims would be higher than toward conservative Christians. This is not to say that Islamophobia does not exist in academia, but merely that hostility among scholars toward Muslims is not likely to be higher than animosity toward conservative Christians. Thus documentation of a significant level of anti-Christian animosity would serve to legitimate future inquiries about the level of anti-Muslim hostility within academia.
- 3.
One can define social conservatism as a focus on maintaining a traditional society. It is generally manifested in “moral” issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Foreign policy conservatism concerns a more muscular use of the military and an aggressive foreign policy. Economic conservatism is based on notions of a smaller government and the promotion of free market capitalism. It is plausible that social conservatism, with its focus on issues of morality, is more threatening to the domains in the social sciences than issues of foreign policy and the economy. If this is true then the higher evidence of bias against social conservatives would reflect such a threat.
- 4.
The groups were chosen to assess possible political (Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Libertarians, Communist Party, ACLU, and NRA), sexuality (Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, and Transgendered), religious (Atheist, Mormon, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish), lifestyle (Vegetarian and Hunter), family status (Married, Divorced, Cohabitating, and Single with Children), and age (Under 30, Over 50) dimensions of bias.
- 5.
Those who were socialized in the United States but worked at a college or university outside of the United States were excluded by this method. However, I suspect that this excluded relatively few academics. I did include those scholars socialized in other countries but currently working in the United States. I suspect that this is not an insignificant number. However, these individuals have likely been in the United States long enough to have picked up on social cues as to which social groups are acceptable, and thus their answers should reflect the values of the larger discipline.
- 6.
The directories used were American Sociological Association (ASA) 2007 Directory of Members, American Anthropological Association 2008–2009 Guide, American Chemical Society Directory of Graduate Research, Directory of American Philosophers 2008–2009, Directory of History Departments, Historical Organizations and Historians, Directory of Physics, Astronomy and Geophysics Staff, Directory of Political Science Faculty and Programs 2007–2008, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Directory of Members 2008–2009 and Publications of the Modern Language Associations of America Directory.
- 7.
The response rates ranged from 27.9% among philosophers to 13% among physicists. However, the responses rates were low, and so I took measures to deal with potential nonresponse bias. Low response rates do not necessarily indicate nonresponse bias (Groves, 2006; Keeter et al., 2000). Groves’s (2006) methods of assessing nonresponse bias include comparisons to similar estimates in other sources and matching the sample to the external database. However, I did not have access to accurate demographic measures for each discipline. So instead I decided to see if there ever were significant demographic differences that may have shaped my results. Did the results vary by gender, age, race etc. I found no relevant differences in the shaping of attitudes by such variables. Neither did it matter whether the respondent worked in a higher status program (determined by the level of degree conferred by the program). The only factor that was constantly a significant predictor of attitudes toward Christian groups was whether the respondent worked in the social sciences, hard sciences, or humanities.
- 8.
It can be argued that it is inappropriate to discuss atheists as a religious group. After all they are defined by their unwillingness to embrace religion. However, like adherents of religion, they too have certain beliefs about non-material reality, in that this reality is a myth, and thus they can be grouped with other systems of belief about that reality.
- 9.
Using the seven-point Likert scale with lower numbers indicating lower willingness to hire a candidate those in the social sciences were significantly less willing to hire Republicans (3.606 vs. 3.888: p < 0.001), Christian fundamentalists (3.121 vs. 3.354: p < 0.05), and evangelicals (3.355 vs. 3.581), but were not significantly less willing to hire NRA members (3.425 vs. 3.572).
- 10.
The willingness of social scientists to hire Republicans (3.606 vs. 3.695), NRA members (3.425 vs. 3.454), and evangelicals (3.355 vs. 3.435), but were more likely to be willing to hire Christian fundamentalists (3.121 vs. 2.946: p < 0.05) than academics in the humanities.
- 11.
In the survey I used the term fundamentalist instead of Christian fundamentalist. The meaning of fundamentalist is historically rooted in American Protestantism but most academics do not know this and may confuse this term with a general religious extremist. But since the religious extremist they are most likely to associate with being a fundamentalist is Muslim and Muslim is one of the groups asked about in this survey, it is reasonable to argue that they were not confusing fundamentalism with Muslim or a general religious fundamentalism but rather conceptualized the group they knew best which were Christian fundamentalists.
- 12.
Both groups are known for their racism and according to data from the xxx, when asked which group an individuals liked the least, racist groups, among all groups, had the highest percentage of detractors (27.2%) with radical Muslims a distant second (16.6%).
- 13.
The survey started out with our thermometer measures and thus we received the highest number of responses in response to those questions.
- 14.
First, we have the same order of rankings as Tobin and Weinberg (2007) as academics in their sample ranked evangelicals lower than Mormons whom they ranked lower than atheists. Second, the religious composition of our sample is similar to theirs as we have similar percentages of Evangelicals (13% vs. 11%), Mainline or non-Evangelical Protestants (22% vs. 25%), Catholics (12% vs. 18%), and Jews (5% vs. 5%). Third, the makeup of our sample was also very similar to data in a national probability post-secondary faculty sample (Cataldi et al., 2005) in sex (56% male vs. 57% male) and race (90% white vs. 85% white). Differing measures assessing age and marital status made comparisons in these categories untenable. The only big difference was in percentage of respondents with a doctorate degree (81% vs. 41%) indicating that Cataldi, Fahimi, and Bradburn’s sample included a higher percentage of community college and/or four-year college instructors.
- 15.
The exact question was: “We’d like to get your feelings about some religious groups in American society. We’d like you to rate each group with what we call a feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorably or warm toward the group; ratings between 0 and 50 degrees mean that you don’t feel favorably towards the group and that you don’t care too much for that group. If you don’t feel particularly warm or cold toward a group you would rate them at 50 degrees. If you do not know anything about a group then please leave the box blank. Otherwise please place a number from 0 to 100 in each box to indicate your rating for each group.”
- 16.
It should be noted that it is possible that the direction can be reversed. Other forces may have impacted academics to reject conservative Protestants and because of that rejection academics are less likely to have conservative Protestants as friends and less likely to identify as one. I do not discount this possibility. However it should be noted that this would not easily explain the relationship of conservative Protestants in an academic’s social network at 15 and their current attitudes about fundamentalists or evangelicals as their social networks at 15 may have been as much about the actions of their parents as much as their own actions.
- 17.
The perception of rejection has developed in spite of the fact that research indicates that religiosity is correlated with success in secondary education (Antrop-González et al., 2007; Jeynes, 2002; Muller & Ellison, 2001) and higher education (Bowman et al., 2014; S. M. Lee et al., 2007; Mooney, 2010).
- 18.
While the focus of this paper is upon religion in a traditional sense, it should also be stated that individuals may attempt to answer questions of meaning with materialistic ideologies. It is plausible that meaning can come from humanistic concerns (i.e., Marxism, environmentalism) without any reliance on otherworldly beliefs. In such situations one would expect a similar level of ideological and moral commitment as those who rely on otherworldly beliefs to construct answers to meaning.
- 19.
It is often assumed that understanding a group with a numerical majority, such as Christians, is not important in a diversity course. I disagree as it is plausible that many individuals in the courses may not have had much exposure to conservative Christians. This is particularity possible if individuals come from regions of the country, such as the Northwest and New England area, where conservative Christians are underrepresented and from secular families in those regions.
References
Ames, B., Barker, D., Bonneau, C., & Carman, C. (2005). Hide the republicans, the Christians, and the women: A response to “politics and professional advancement among college faculty”. The Forum, 3(2).
Ammerman, N. T. (2005). Pillars of faith: American congregations and their partners. Univ of California Press.
Antrop-González, R., Velez, W., & Garrett, T. (2007). The relationship between religiosity and the high academic achievement of Puerto Rican high school students. Christianity, Education, and Modern Society, 247–262.
Baker, J. R. (1986). Fundamentalism as anti-intellectualism. The Humanist, 46(2), 26.
Barna Research, G. (2002). American faith is diverse, as shown among five faith-based segments. Retrieved December, 6, 2010.
Bowman, N., Vivienne, F., & Ortis, L. (2014). Religious/worldview identification and college student success. Religion & Education, 41(2), 117–133.
Bracey, G. E., & Moore, W. L. (2017). “Race tests”: Racial boundary maintenance in white evangelical churches. Sociological Inquiry, 87(2), 282–302.
Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and religion: Some historical perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Burlein, A. (2002). Lift high the cross: Where white supremacy and the Christian right converge. Duke University Press.
Cataldi, E. F., Fahimi, M., & Bradburn, E. M. (2005). 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF: 04) Report on Faculty and Instructional Staff in Fall 2003. Retrieved from Washington, DC
Center, P. R. (2015). America’s changing religious landscape. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
Ciftci, S. (2012). Islamophobia and threat perceptions: Explaining anti-Muslim sentiment in the west. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 32(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2012.727291
Cummings, N. A., & Cummings, J. L. (2009). Psychology’s war on protestants is a one size fits all. In N. A. Cumming, W. O’Donohue, & J. L. Cummings (Eds.), Psychology’s war on religion (pp. 147–171). Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, Inc.
Davidson, G. R., Hill, C. A., & Wolgemuth, K. (2017). The need for a paradigm shift in science advocacy. GSA Today, 27(7), 58–59.
Dean, J. W. (2006). Conservatives without conscience. Penguin.
Dorrien, G. J. (2001). The making of American liberal theology: Imagining progressive religion, 1805–1900 (Vol. Vol. 1). Westminster John Knox Press.
Ecklund, E. H. (2010). Science vs. religion: What scientists really think. Oxford University Press.
Ecklund, E. H., & Scheitle, C. P. (2007). Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems, 54(2), 289–307.
Edles, L. D. (2013). Contemporary progressive Christianity and its symbolic ramifications. Cultural Sociology, 7(1), 3–22.
Emerson, M. O., & Smith, C. (2001). Divided by faith: Evangelical religion and the problem of race in America. Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R. A. (2005). Striving for the sacred: Personal goals, life meaning, and religion. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 731–745.
Epstein, S. (1998). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In D. F. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. B. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality (pp. 211–238). Springer.
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology. Wiley.
Fain, P. (2017). Deep partisan divide on higher education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/07/11/dramatic-shift-most-republicans-now-say-colleges-have-negative-impact
Freeman, P. K., & Houston, D. J. (2011). Rejecting darwin and support for science funding. Social Science Quarterly, 92(5), 1151–1168.
Fuist, T. N., Stoll, L. C., & Kniss, F. (2012). Beyond the liberal-conservative divide: Assessing the relationship between religious denominations and their associated LGBT organizations. Qualitative Sociology, 35(1), 65–87.
Fulton, A. S., Gorsuch, R. L., & Maynard, E. A. (1999). Religious orientation, antihomosexual sentiment, and fundamentalism among Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14–22.
Goldberg, J. (2008). Liberal fascism: The secret history of the American left, from Mussolini to the politics of meaning. Doubleday.
Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping Magisteria. Natural History, 106, 16–22.
Gross, N., & Fosse, E. (2012). Why are professors liberal? Theory and Society, 41(2), 127–168.
Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, 70(2), 101–129.
Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675.
Gunn, A. E., & Zenner, G. O. (1996). Religious discrimination in the selection of medical students: A case study. The Linacre Quarterly, 63(3), 42–54.
Haas, J. W. (1994). John Wesley’s views on science and Christianity: An examination of the charge of antiscience. Church History, 63(3), 378–392.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
Halstead, J. M. (2005). Religion, culture and schooling. In C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 394–424). Wiley.
Harrison, P. (2015). The territories of science and religion. University of Chicago Press.
Herf, J. (2013). Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in historical perspective: Convergence and divergence. Routledge.
Herman, D. (2007). The antigay agenda: Orthodox vision and the Christian right. University of Chicago Press.
Horowitz, D. (2013). The professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America. Simon and Schuster.
Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6(1), 39–49.
Hunter, J. D. (1983). American evangelicalism: Conservative religion and the quandary of modernity. Rutgers University Press.
Hyers, L. L. (2008). Everyday discrimination experienced by conservative Christians at the secular university. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 113–137.
Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496–503.
Jacoby, R. (2005). So universities hire liberal faculty – This is news? Retrieved from http://hnn.us/articles/10836.html
Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (1991). Religious dogmatism among white Christians: Causes and effects. Review of Religious Research, 32–46.
Jeynes, W. H. (2002). A meta-analysis of the effects of attending religious schools and religiosity on Black and Hispanic academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 27–49.
Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Oxford University Press.
Jussim, L., Cain, T. R., Crawford, J. T., Harber, K., & Cohen, F. (2009). The unbearable accuracy of stereotypes. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, sterotyping and discrimination. Psychology Press.
Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., & Rubinstein, R. S. (2015). Stereotype (in)accuracy in perceptions of groups and individuals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415605257
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(2), 125–148.
Kelsey, G. D. (1965). Racism and the Christian understanding of man. Scribner.
Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2006). The ideological profile of faculty in the humanities and social sciences: A reply to Zipp and Fenwick.
Klein, D. B., Stern, C., & Western, A. (2005). Political diversity in six disciplines. Academic Questions, 18(1), 40–52.
Klein, D. B., & Western, A. (2005). Voter registration of Berkeley and Stanford faculty. Academic Questions, 18(1), 53–65.
Ladd, E. C., Jr., & Lipset, S. M. (1975). The divided academy. Professors and Politics.
Langbert, M. (2016). The left orientation of industrial relations. Econ Journal Watch, 13(1), 46–74.
Larregue, J. (2018). Conservative apostles of objectivity and the myth of a “liberal bias” in science. The American Sociologist, 49(2), 312–327.
Larsen, T., & Treier, D. J. (2007). The Cambridge companion to evangelical theology. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. B. (2006). The" faculty bias" studies: Science or propaganda? JBL Associates.
Lee, S. M., Puig, A., & Clark, M. A. (2007). The role of religiosity on postsecondary degree attainment. Counseling and Values, 52(1), 25–39.
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. Handbook of Affective Science, 619(642), 3.
Mooney, M. (2010). Religion, college grades, and satisfaction among students at elite colleges and universities. Sociology of Religion, 71(2), 197–215.
Muller, C., & Ellison, C. G. (2001). Religious involvement, social capital, and adolescents’ academic progress: Evidence from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Sociological Focus, 34(2), 155–183.
Nel, M. (2016). Rather Spirit-filled than learned! Pentecostalism’s tradition of anti-intellectualism and Pentecostal theological scholarship. Verbum et Ecclesia, 37(1), 1–9.
O’Donohue, W. T. (2009). The culture wars and psychology’s alliance. In N. A. Cumming, W. O’Donohue, & J. L. Cummings (Eds.), Psychology’s war on religion (pp. 3–20). Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, Inc.
Ogan, C., Willnat, L., Pennington, R., & Bashir, M. (2013). The rise of anti-Muslim prejudice: Media and islamophobia in Europe and the United States. International Communication Gazette, 1748048513504048.
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(2), 143–158.
Park, C. L. (2005). Religion and meaning. In Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (Vol. 2, pp. 357–379).
Peters, U. (2018). Implicit bias, ideological bias, and epistemic risks in philosophy. Mind & Language.
Pfister, H.-R., & Böhm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgment and Decision making, 3(1), 5.
Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56(3), 205.
Rios, K., Cheng, Z. H., Totton, R. R., & Shariff, A. F. (2015). Negative stereotypes cause Christians to underperform in and disidentify with science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 959–967.
Romanowski, M. H. (1998). Are US textbooks right about the religious right?
Rothman, S., & Lichter, S. R. (2009). The vanishing conservative – Is there a glass ceiling? In R. Maranto, R. E. Redding, & F. M. Hess (Eds.), The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms (pp. 60–76). The AEI Press.
Saeed, A. (2007). Media, racism and Islamophobia: The representation of Islam and Muslims in the media. Sociology Compass, 1(2), 443–462.
Schäfer, A. R. (2011). Countercultural conservatives: American evangelicalism from the postwar revival to the new Christian right. University of Wisconsin Press.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402745
Sherkat, D. E., & Darnell, A. (1999). The effect of parents’ fundamentalism on children’s educational attainment: Examining differences by gender and children’s fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23–35.
Sherkat, D. E., Powell-Williams, M., Maddox, G., & De Vries, K. M. (2011). Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the United States, 1988–2008. Social Science Research, 40(1), 167–180.
Slife, B. D., & Reber, J. S. (2009). Is there a pervasive implicit bias against theism in psychology? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29(2), 63.
Smith, B. L. R., Mayer, J. D., & Fritschler, A. L. (2010). Closed minds?: Politics and ideology in American universities. Brookings Institution Press.
Smith, C. (2014). The sacred project of American sociology. Oxford University Press.
Smith, P. J., & Tuttle, R. W. (2011). Biblical literalism and constitutional originalism (Vol. 86, p. 693). Notre Dame L. Rev..
Stark, R. (1963). On the incompatibility of religion and science: A survey of American graduate students. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion.
Tillich, P. (2001). Dynamics of faith (Vol. Vol. 42). Zondervan.
Tobin, G. A., & Weinberg, A. K. (2007). Religious beliefs & behavior of college faculty. Institute for Jewish & Community Research.
Tsang, J.-A., & Rowatt, W. C. (2007). The relationship between religious orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and implicit sexual prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17(2), 99–120.
Wellman, J. K. (2008). Evangelical vs. Liberal: The clash of Christian cultures in the Pacific Northwest. Oxford University Press.
White, A. (2017). A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom: Volume 1, from creation to the victory of scientific and literary methods. Routledge.
Wilcox, C. (2018). Onward Christian soldiers?: The religious right in American politics. Routledge.
Williams, D. K. (2012). God’s own party: The making of the Christian right. Oxford University Press.
Wood, P. (2012). Victory for Freedom of conscience in Ward v. Polite. Retrieved from https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/victory_for_freedom_of_conscience_in_ward_v_polite
Wuthnow, R. (1989). The restructuring of American religion: Society and faith since World War II. Princeton University Press.
Yancey, G. (2011). Compromising scholarship: Religious and political bias in American higher education. Baylor University Press.
Yancey, G. (2018). Yes academic Bias is a problem and we need to address it: A response to Larregue. The American Sociologist, 49(2), 336–343.
Yancey, G., Reimer, S., & O’Connell, J. (2015). How academics view conservative Protestants. Sociology of Religion, 76(3), 315–336.
Yancey, G., & Williamson, D. (2012). What motivates cultural progressives: Understanding opposition to the political and Christian right. Baylor University Press.
Yancey, G., & Williamson, D. (2014). So many Christians, so few lions: Is there Christianophobia in the United States? Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Yancey, G. A. (2010). Neither Jew nor Gentile: Exploring issues of racial diversity on Protestant college campuses. Oxford University Press.
Yarhouse, M. A. (2009). The Battle regarding sexuality. In N. A. Cummings, W. O’Donohue, & J. L. Cummings (Eds.), Psychology’s war on religion. Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, Inc.
Zine, J. (2004). Anti-islamophobia education as transformative Pedadogy: Reflections from the educational front lines. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 21(3), 110–119.
Zipp, J. F., & Fenwick, R. (2006). Is the academy a liberal hegemony? The political orientations and educational values of professors. International Journal of Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(3), 304–326.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yancey, G. (2023). “Many of Their Beliefs Are Also Cruel”: Religious Bias in the Study of Psychology. In: Frisby, C.L., Redding, R.E., O'Donohue, W.T., Lilienfeld, S.O. (eds) Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29148-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29148-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-29147-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-29148-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)