↓ Skip to main content

Tolerating the “doubting Thomas”: how centrality of religious beliefs vs. practices influences prejudice against atheists

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tolerating the “doubting Thomas”: how centrality of religious beliefs vs. practices influences prejudice against atheists
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01352
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Hughes, Igor Grossmann, Adam B. Cohen

Abstract

Past research has found a robust effect of prejudice against atheists in largely Christian-dominated (belief-oriented) samples. We propose that religious centrality of beliefs vs. practices influences attitudes toward atheists, such that religious groups emphasizing beliefs perceive non-believers more negatively than believers, while groups emphasizing practices perceive non-practicing individuals more negatively than practicing individuals. Studies 1-2, in surveys of 41 countries, found that Muslims and Protestants (belief-oriented) had more negative attitudes toward atheists than did Jews and Hindus (practice-oriented). Study 3 experimentally manipulated a target individual's beliefs and practices. Protestants had more negative attitudes toward a non-believer (vs. a believer), whereas Jews had more negative attitudes toward a non-practicing individual (vs. a practicing individual, particularly when they had a Jewish background). This research has implications for the psychology of religion, anti-atheist prejudice, and cross-cultural attitudes regarding where dissent in beliefs or practices may be tolerated or censured within religious groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 28%
Student > Master 6 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 60%
Social Sciences 5 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 1 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,722,003
of 25,410,626 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,381
of 34,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,154
of 279,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#95
of 551 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,410,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 551 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.