MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406964739 · doi:10.1177/00846724241309922

Interfaith prejudice in the United States: The role of social identity complexity

2025· article· en· W4406964739 on OpenAlexaff
Veronica N. Z. Bergstrom, Alison L. Chasteen

Bibliographic record

VenueArchive for the Psychology of Religion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrejudice (legal term)Identity (music)Social psychologySocial identity theorySociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyGender studiesSocial groupPhilosophyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interfaith prejudice continues to be an understudied challenge in the United States. In three studies, the present research focused on prejudice between atheists and Christians and assessed the role that social identity complexity (SIC), the degree of overlap that an individual perceives between their various social identities, plays in these biases, as well as tested a novel intervention method using SIC to reduce bias. Study 1 assessed the relationship between SIC and prejudice for atheists and Christians and found that higher SIC in Christians was associated with lower levels of prejudice, but SIC was unrelated to prejudice for atheists. Study 2 tested the utility of an SIC intervention for reducing prejudice in Christians and showed a small increase in SIC but no reduction in prejudice towards atheists. A mini meta-analysis in Study 3 assessed the relationship between SIC and prejudice across all three studies and fully replicated Study 1. This line of work was an important first step in uncovering the relationship between SIC and interfaith intolerance for atheists and Christians in the United States. The findings suggest that SIC interventions may have potential for reducing prejudice in Christians, but future researchers will need to use methods that can be tested longitudinally for greater impact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchive for the Psychology of ReligionSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207