Ummah or tribe? Islamic practice, political ethnocentrism, and political attitudes in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research has uncovered a link between religious practice and political ethnocentrism. Religious individuals are relatively inclined to both support policies that benefit their own ethnic group and support political competitors seeking to represent them. These findings are broadly consistent with a large body of literature that examines the relationship between religion and ethnic prejudice. To date, empirical research has concentrated overwhelmingly on Western, Christian contexts. There is, however, reason to believe that Islamic practice may produce more universalistic beliefs and attitudes. This paper examines the relationship between religious participation and political ethnocentrism in Indonesia, this world’s largest Muslim-majority country. Using survey data collected during the lead-up to the 2009 national elections, this paper examines the relationship between religious practice and expressed preference for co-ethnic political leadership. It finds that a respondent’s self-reported level of religious activity strongly correlates with stated preference for co-ethnic leadership. These findings bolster confidence that the relationship between religious participation and ethnocentrism holds beyond Western Christian contexts. For Indonesia, deepening Islamic practice could thus predict a rise in ethnocentrism, threatening the country’s reputation for tolerance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".