Meta-prejudice and prejudice

In psychology, research on thinking of what others are thinking is not new. In general, this model of thinking is called as meta-cognition, meta-knowledge, or meta-perception.

Putra (Reference Putra2014) has introduced a new idea called meta-prejudice, which is what group members think that other people negatively think about others. This idea is closely related to meta-stereotypes, which is defined as people’s beliefs about how they are viewed by others (Vorauer, Hunter, Main, & Roy, Reference Vorauer, Hunter, Main and Roy2000; Vorauer, Main, & O’Connel, Reference Vorauer, Main and O’Connel1998). In some regards, however, there are differences between meta-prejudice and meta-stereotypes. First, meta-stereotypes focus only on how group members are viewed by outgroup members, whereas meta-prejudice focuses both on how “my” group perceives the outgroup and how the outgroup perceives “my” group. The notion of meta-prejudice considers two types of perceptions in intergroup relations, whereas meta-stereotypes only one. Second, meta-stereotypes focus on stereotypes traits (e.g., Indonesians are aggressive), that are known as general characteristics of a particular group; whereas meta-prejudice concerns to negative feelings or hatred (e.g., Indonesians are a threat) toward a particular group. In some cases, it is possible that some groups are described as having positive characteristics, however, these characteristics do not mean to associate with a low level of prejudice. For example, the Nazis describe the Jews as experts on doing business, but because business skills are considered a threat, the Jews are hated by the Nazis and their sympathizers. In addition, meta-stereotypes tend to understand ingroup characteristics as viewed by the outgroup, while meta-prejudice tends to understand ingroup and outgroup feelings perceived by ingroup members.

In this study, prejudice is defined as negative qualities about others as part of a group (Crandall & Eshleman, Reference Crandall and Eshleman2003; Reicher, Reference Reicher, Dixon and Levine2012), which in particular relates to negative beliefs, thinking, or feeling. “I believe Jews are evil” or “I believe Indonesians are a threat to our group” are some examples. Putra (Reference Putra2014) suggests that both ingroup and outgroup meta-prejudice plays a central role in influencing prejudice. However, since the research was conducted primarily in a place where Muslims are the majority, further study needs to be carried out in a different context, such as in a place where Muslims are the minority.

Religious groups and its members’s perceptions

According to reports by Pew Research Center (2012) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA, 2013), more than 80% of the world population identify themselves with a religious group. This is evidence that globally, religion is important for identity (Verkuyten, Reference Verkuyten2007). In particular, religion has been reported to be of great importance in non-western societies (Sen, Wagner, & Howarth, Reference Sen, Wagner and Howarth2014) or cultures (Verkuyten, Reference Verkuyten2007).

Often, people affiliated with a religious group justify their own group as more positive than others (Verkuyten, Reference Verkuyten2007; Verkuyten & Zaremba, Reference Verkuyten and Zaremba2005). It is because their religion provides meaning and guidance for their lives (van Tongeren, Hook, & Davis, Reference van Tongeren, Hook and Davis2013; Yssedyk, Matheson, & Anisman, Reference Ysseldyk, Matheson and Anisman2010); thus individuals who highly identify with a religious group will place their religion as important for their self-concept. Some findings have also reported that religiosity relates to individual well-being and health behaviors (Jackson & Bergeman, Reference Jackson and Bergeman2011; Lawler-Row, Reference Lawler-Row2010). Yssedyk et al. (Reference Ysseldyk, Matheson and Anisman2010) suggest that it is because there are mechanisms that stimulate religious people to associate with healthy lives, one of those is social support from members of their religious community. For this reason, it is understandable that religious people are loyal to their religion through which they believe that their religion is the correct one and the only truth to follow.

Even though group members are inclined to evaluate their own group more positive than outgroups, there is evidence that group members are diverse in evaluating their own group (Jaspars & Warnaen, Reference Jaspars, Warnaen and Tajfel1982; Verkuyten, Reference Verkuyten2007; Warnaen, Reference Warnaen2002). For some reason, one of group members may evaluate their own group in a negative way. A study conducted by Warnaen (Reference Warnaen2002) revealed that group members know and are aware of the negative and positive characteristics of their group. Therefore, it is very likely that a group member may perceive their ingroup in a negative way when the negative characteristics are more salient than the positive. For example, Major, Kaiser, O’Brien, and McCoy (Reference Major, Kaiser, O’Brien and McCoy2007) suggest that the ingroup can be perceived as a threat when it is considered to contribute to low status and discriminations.

In terms of interreligious relations, previous studies reported that religious people can be either more or less tolerant toward outgroup members (Allport, Reference Allport1958; Brambilla, Manzi, Regalia, & Verkuyten, Reference Brambilla, Manzi, Regalia and Verkuyten2013). Brambilla et al. (Reference Brambilla, Manzi, Regalia and Verkuyten2013) demonstrated that individuals who identify with a religion that endorses prosocial values were negatively related to prejudice; in contrast, religious people who conform to norms saying that they should distrust those who are from different beliefs were found positively related to prejudice. The findings suggest that it is not their religiosity that makes people tend to be prejudiced or tolerant, but it depends how the religion is internalized; it depends on how it is shown or understood.

In regard to the present study, another possibility to find out how religious people tend to be prejudiced is by analyzing how they think what others are thinking. A lot of studies have suggested that people are able to see and interpret things from the point of view of others (see e.g., Goldstein, Vezich, & Shapiro, Reference Goldstein, Vezich and Shapiro2014; Long & Andrews, Reference Long and Andrews1990; Quintana, Ybarra, Gonzalez-Doupe, & De Baessa, Reference Quintana, Ybarra, Gonzalez-Doupe and De Baesa2000) This ability allows people to learn ideas, beliefs, and behaviors from others and to think what others are thinking. More often than not, what people think others are thinking can be an influential tool to justify others (Elcheroth, Doice, & Reicher, Reference Elcheroth, Doise and Reicher2011). It is then understandable why ingroup meta-prejudice and outgroup meta-prejudice play a key role in influencing prejudice (Putra, Reference Putra2014). Nevertheless, it seems plausible that the effect of ingroup and outgroup meta-prejudice on prejudice depends on high and low positive self-evaluation toward the ingroup. Individuals who justify their own group as highly positive are more likely influenced by ingroup and outgroup meta-prejudice.

The present study and religious life in indonesia

The field study was conducted in the context of interreligious relations in Indonesia. There are two reasons why it is done in Indonesia. First, religion is regarded as something very important in Indonesia. In Pancasila, the official philosophical foundation of the Indonesian state, the first of five principles (sila) says “Belief in the one and only God”. In public schools from elementary to state universities, religious education is compulsory, wherein all students must study about their own religion. Second, based on a report from Human Rights Watch (2013), the conflicts that occurred in Indonesia were frequently interreligious.

Generally, Sunni Islam is the largest religious group in Indonesia. However, in some regions like the eastern part, namely Papua, Maluku, Flores, and Timor, Christianity is the majority. In places where Sunni Islam is the majority, Ahmadiyya and Christian groups are among the victims of discrimination and violence.

In Indonesia and other countries, Ahmadiyya is a minority group within Islam. Among other Islamic denominations, Ahmadiyya is seen as different. First, its founder Mirza Gulan Ahmad is believed by the Ahmadis (the adherents of Ahmadiyya) to be the Messiah and a prophet who did not bring a new religion and holy book. This belief is very different from the two biggest denominations in Islam, Shia and Sunni. Second, an Ahmadi can only do congregational prayer in its own community, and with an Ahmadi Imam (leaders). On the other hand, other Muslims can do congregational praying anywhere, even when the Imam is not from the same community. Third, even though Ahmadiyya also accept the Quran as their holy book, their interpretation of it is very exclusive. Ahmadiyya do not accept Quran interpretations from outside its community, while other Muslim communities are very open to interpretations developed by others (Hanafi, Reference Hanafi2011). At least because of these three points, Ahmadiyya’s existence has triggered fierce debates within majority Sunni Muslim groups. The debates surround the question of whether Ahmadiyya is still part of Islam or not. This issue has even been covered by some national TV stations in Indonesia.

Different from Ahmadiyya and because it is legally acknowledged, the existence of Christianity (i.e., Catholic and Protestant) in Indonesia is not debated (Syihab, Reference Syihab2013). In Indonesia, important and holy dates in Christianity are recognized as national holidays. However, in social life, tensions and frictions between Muslims and Christians often occur. More often, the tensions appeared to be triggered by proselytization issue (Bertrand, Reference Bertrand2004). In Indonesia, proselytism is considered a sensitive issue, especially in Muslim-Christian relations.

The present study was conducted in Flores, located on the eastern part of Indonesia. A previous study (Putra, Reference Putra2014) has shown that ingroup and outgroup meta-prejudice play a role in predicting prejudice in the context where Muslims are the majority group. The present study tested the relationship between meta-prejudice and prejudice where Christianity is the largest religion (i.e., ± 90% in Flores) and Islam is the second (i.e., ± 8%). From information given by a member of Ahmadiyya community, there is no news about Ahmadiyya activities in Flores. Nevertheless, not far from Flores, in Lombok island there are some Ahmadi refugees exiled from their hometown. Considering this, it is then important to explore the level of prejudice within Muslims and Christians in Flores. Furthermore, the present study extended the previous study by examining the role of ingroup self-evaluation in moderating the effect of ingroup and outgroup meta-prejudice on prejudice. In doing so, hypotheses are as follows (see figure 1 to see the model illustration):

Figure 1.

Path diagram of moderated regression analysis of the effect Ingroup/outgroup meta on prejudice moderated by Ingroup Self-evaluation.

Hypothesis 1. The relation between ingroup meta-prejudice and prejudice will be moderated by perceptions of whether ingroup is or is not positively evaluated within religious group members. More specifically, when positive ingroup self-evaluation is perceived as high, there will be a positive relation between ingroup meta-prejudice and prejudice (H1a); but no such relation would exist if positive ingroup self-evaluation were low (H1b).

Hypothesis 2. The relation between outgroup meta-prejudice and prejudice will be moderated by perceptions of whether ingroup is or is not positively evaluated within religious group members. More specifically, when positive ingroup self-evaluation is perceived as high, there will be a positive relation between outgroup meta-prejudice and prejudice (H2a); but no such relation would exist if positive ingroup self-evaluation were low (H2b).