- Email: [email protected]
Psychological consequences of religious symbols in public space: Crucifix display at a public university
Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
Psychological consequences of religious symbols in public space: Crucifix display at a public university Michal Bilewicz a, *, Jaroslaw Klebaniuk b a b
Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Stawki 5/7, 00-183 Warszawa, Poland Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Poland
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 14 March 2013
The question of the presence of religious symbols (e.g. crosses) in public space is an important topic in public discourse, leading to many political disagreements and legal disputes. What seems to be missing in the debate about crosses in public space (schools, universities, hospitals) is an assessment of the psychological consequences that these symbols might have for religious and non-religious people visiting, studying and working in such places. The present experimental study examined the influence of religious displays in a public university room on the psychological state of students: their self-esteem, as well as positive and negative affect. The study found that the religious symbol reduced negative affect among students who identify strongly with religion and those who frequently attend religious ceremonies. The negative effects on non-religious students were less pronounced. This result is discussed with reference to self-affirmation theory, environmental psychological theories and more recent findings on the social consequences of more subtle religious exposures. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Religious symbols Self-affirmation Place identity Social identity Negative affect Symbolism
“A crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol (.) It cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities,” pronounced the European Court of Human Rights on the presence of crucifixes in classrooms of state schools (ECHR, 2011, p. 29). This sentence was preceded by a large debate about the presence of religious symbols in European public schools. Such debates are linked also to a more general question about the impact of religious symbols present in living space on people’s well-being and psychological functioning. 1. Space and subjective well-being Why do we happen to be happy? Why are we sometimes unhappy? Answers to these questions usually refer to our dispositions, particularly our temperament, and the material conditions of our life, our abilities and efforts, proximate social environment and systemic socio-economic factors. It is less noticeable that one of the determinants of our subjective well-being is the physical space we inhabit and how it is construed. In a Swiss study, an improvement in perceived environmental housing quality increased the wellbeing of inhabitants (Kahlmeyer, Schindler, Grize, & Braun* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Bilewicz). 0272-4944/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.03.001
Fahrländer, 2001). In Australian studies, before and after controls for family composition, social class and culture, the children living in commercial streets, particularly in inner-city areas, stood out from all the others in their feelings of loneliness, dislike of other children and feelings of rejection, worry, fear, anger and unhappiness (Homel & Burns, 1989). Not only features of the environment, but also aesthetic preferences seem to be significant. Galindo and Rodriguez (2000) found that affective responses (comfort, arousal, sadness, boredom, tranquility and safety) were associated with aesthetic judgments of landscapes in which people lived. A more recent British study found a relationship between natural environments and experiential feeling states e both positive and negative (Hinds & Sparks, 2011). The effects of physical surroundings on psychological states are not necessarily direct, however, and could also be mediated by group-related factors, self-concepts and social identities. It is well established that social identity e derived from group membership e is a crucial source of positive self-esteem and well-being (Tajfel, 1978). People suffer psychologically when they are convinced that their in-group has not been accepted or has been excluded from an important social context such as a neighborhood, workplace or classroom (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007). Recent findings suggest that physical space severely affects people’s social identity (Haslam, Ellemers, Reicher, Reynolds, & Schmitt, 2010). For example, Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, and Steele (2009) found in a series of studies that the
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
presence of objects stereotypically associated with computer science (e.g. comic books, electronics) reduced women’s interest in science, the effect being mediated by a reduced sense of belonging within that context. Thus, construal of one’s physical surroundings is affected by one’s social identities. In environmental psychology, self-identity has often been related to place attachment, the concept describing a person’s emotions connected to a place (Cooper Marcus, 1992; Relph, 1976). Place attachment is “intimately linked to preservation of a sense of personal identity” (Rowles, 1983, p. 300) and objects are invested with symbolic meaning connected with past experiences and memories (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). Other authors have developed the concept of “place identity,” claiming that it is a far more complex phenomenon than place attachment, as it goes beyond emotions and the sense of belonging to a particular place, including attitudes, values, thoughts, beliefs, meanings and behavioral tendencies influenced by physical space (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Places that were cultural settings for childhood socialization become models for the future selves of their inhabitants. Thus, objects in childhood homes (e.g. religious artifacts) not only express individual identity, but can also shape it (Hummon, 1989). Being in religious places connected with a positive social identity, and dealing with objects important to a religion-based social identity, could therefore affect the sense of subjective well-being. Another interesting observation about relations between people and objects was made by the sociological studies of interaction (Goffman, 1967). This tradition of theorizing focuses on demeanor as the expression of people’s manifestations of self-image to the audience in everyday action. Each action toward another person or inanimate object can communicate self-image as well as deference (respect of another person). From this perspective people’s behavior toward religious symbols in public space represents not only their religious behavior but could act as a ritual of self-presentation in everyday life. This corroborates with the findings of environmental psychology that suggest that placing any object in public space can serve as a social ritual and a process of social structuring. Seminal studies by Zweigenhaft (1976) showed that faculty members who placed desks between themselves and students created psychological borders that represented status hierarchies (such settings were preferred only by senior faculty). Such spatial behavior is linked to students’ feelings and the formality of the professor (Morrow & McElroy, 1981). Similarly, locating a religious symbol in a public space might not only be a form of identity performance but also a status-defining action that creates stratification between ingroup (religious) and out-group members (non-religious). 2. Religious symbols’ effect on individuals’ psychological states Symbolic aspects of environment have been of interest to the environmental psychologist for several decades (see, for example, Goffman, 1967; Knapp, 1980; Rapoport, 1982; Ruesch & Kees, 1966; Zweigenhaft, 1976). Religious symbols have only attracted attention more recently, however (e.g. Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 1993, 2001, 2004, 2009). The presence of religious symbols in the public sphere is widespread and distinct. In Western culture, these symbols mainly convey meanings pertaining to Christianity, although the multicultural nature of most Western societies (e.g. North American) is expressed in the presence of symbols specific to other religions, for example, Islam, Buddhism or Judaism. Some of the symbols are revealed by believers themselves (e.g. crosses worn on necks, mezuzahs on doorposts), but others are present in public institutions and spaces (crucifixes in classrooms, large seasonal displays for Christmas or Hanukkah). Given that society is
11
diversified in terms of religious beliefs, the effects of exposure to these religious symbols can vary. Arbitrary decisions by a powerful individual or a small group of people in shaping urban space are a typical case of “autocratic control” (Mazumdar, 2000). This form of control can take several forms, which include control by imposition, by creative, demonstrative, destructive, or self-glorifying intervention, by selective non-intervention, by oversight and by supervision. The common core of all those forms is the imposition, not always official, of urban solutions that affect social life and psychological state. Control can be derived from and be closely linked to not only the political, administrative and social, but also the religious structure of society. Religious symbolism is present not only in outdoor urban space, but also in more proximate indoor environments. This is especially important in the case of immigrants, who try to create space to cultivate their religion, regardless of the majority. In an ethnographic naturalistic field study, Mazumdar and Mazumdar (2009) offered the concepts of “home as religious space” and “ecology of religion” to describe how religious artifacts and landscaping helped immigrants renew connections with past experiences, environments, and people. They found that the Hindus in South California transform their newly acquired secular residences or houses into what they consider to be appropriate space by creating altars, which become a repository of religious objects and artifacts, and by incorporating various forms of religious art into their homes. Thus, the worshipers organize their private space religiously in order to elevate their wellbeing. Mazumdar and Mazumdar (1993) posit that religion through rituals connects people to places, and places as settings for sacred behavior and socialization connect people to religion. In Christian cultures, emblems with a religious connotation include crosses and other installations less literally connected with religious mythology but popular because they derive from age-old traditions. Decorating Christmas trees is one of the most widespread seasonal customs in the latter category. As a cultural symbol, it marks an individual as coming from a Christian background. Schmitt, Davies, Hung, and Wright (2010) examined the psychological consequences of a Christmas display on participants celebrating vs. not celebrating Christmas and, in another study, those identified as Christian, Buddhist, or Sikh. In the former study, the display enhanced well-being of celebrators and harmed that of non-celebrators. In the latter study, the negative effect of the display on non-Christians appeared to be mediated by reduced feelings of inclusion. In neither study did the participants, including non-celebrators nor non-Christians, expect the Christmas display to have a negative effect on them. Actually, they expected a relatively positive effect. The researchers interpret this result as a case of influencing wellbeing by identity-relevant symbols in physical space. According to them, the local physical environment has consequences for intraand intergroup relations (see Haslam et al., 2010). Members of minority groups in the presence of a dominant cultural symbol can experience diminished feelings of inclusion, and suffer from negative mood and low self-esteem. The presence of a dominant culture symbol communicates who defines the norms of the local context, reminding those who do not share the dominant culture that they are not mainstream. The presence of dominant cultural symbols can also have positive effects for those whose identities are reflected in dominant culture (Schmitt et al., 2010). Christmas display is a part of a wider environmental field of influence. The December school curriculum often takes Christmas into account and it influences children’s well-being. Ribak-Rosenthal and Russell (1994) found that US children’s emotion and self-concepts in response to Christmas holiday celebrations in public schools differed, depending on their cultural background. Non-Christian children experienced a significant decrease in happiness and satisfaction from October to December. A significantly greater percentage
12
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
of non-Christian children indicated feeling negative during holiday celebrations than did their Christian counterparts: 27% of the nonChristian children felt “different,” 26% felt “excluded,” 24% felt “annoyed,” 23% felt “unpopular,” and 20% felt “unloved” (RibakRosenthal & Russell, 1994). The results strongly support the thesis that being exposed to socio-cultural stimuli of the religious kind could harm the emotional state of people whose social identity is different from that relevant to the stimuli. Christmas and its symbols in public space could thus be the cause of the diminished well-being of believers of other religions. The question of whether more overt religious symbols can have similar effects may therefore also be raised. The precise research question was formulated as follows: what effects do religious symbols, namely crucifixes in rooms, have on religious and non-religious persons’ affect and self-esteem? 3. How cross display affects psychological state? The studies described so far did not take into account nonseasonal Christian religious symbols. In Poland, Christmas tree is usually displayed from just before Christmas Eve until January 6 (the Epiphany), i.e. for two weeks only. The impact of a short-term Christmas tree display is therefore different from that of the crucifix, which is displayed throughout the year. More importantly, the meaning of the crucifix is different. It symbolizes the Passion, which according to the Gospels and the well-known Roman Catholic dogma, provided humankind with the promise of salvation and the prospect of eternal life. Therefore, the cross seems to be a symbol much more powerful and deeply rooted in religious meaning than the Christmas tree. Thus the crucifix seems more representative of Christian identity than the tree (Kobielus, 2000). Its constant presence in a space could have much more pronounced effect than the two-week presence of the Christmas decoration. The study of the crucifix’s effect on psychological states has additional merits in comparison with research based on the Christmas tree display. The main aim of the present study was to examine the effects of crucifix display on affect and self-esteem of university students. From prior theories of social identity and place identity, we hypothesized that the mere presence of a religious symbol (cross) in a university room would improve the emotional state of religious (Christian) participants by affirming their religious identity. We predicted negative effects for non-religious participants, for whom the symbol would be a sign of the autocratic control of a dominant religious system to which they did not belong. The present study was conducted in Poland e a country where the symbolic dominance of the Roman Catholic Church is clearly visible. New churches are built even in crowded housing areas, among residential buildings, making contact with religious symbols inevitable. Crosses are visible in many public institutions, such as schools, offices and hospitals e making Poland one of the least religiously neutral European countries (Gruber, 2010). Recently, the presence of religious symbols in Poland became the topic of a public debate that included parliamentary disputes between members of conservative and liberal parties (Har1ukowicz, 2009). This context makes Poland an ideal place for a study of the consequences of cross display in public places.
from 18 to 27 (M ¼ 21.42, SD ¼ 1.98). Participants received a small reward (chocolate bar) for taking part in this study. 4.2. Measures 4.2.1. Independent variables 4.2.1.1. Cross display. The experimental manipulation was displaying vs. not displaying the crucifix on the wall over the computer where the study was conducted. The crucifix used in the study was similar to the ones commonly displayed in local institutions of education: it had a dark brown color contrasting with the white wall. The crucifix included a realistic depiction of Jesus’ body (corpus). There were no letters or any inscriptions on the crucifix. 4.2.1.2. Church attendance. Participants were asked how often they performed several listed activities. The list included “attending church” among nine other filler activities (e.g. “reading books,” “shopping,” “family dinner,” “visiting library”). Participants rated each activity on a Likert-type scale that included the following options: 1 (“never”), 2 (“once every few years”), 3 (“annually”), 4 (“a few times a year”), 5 (“monthly”), 6 (“2 or 3 times a month”), 7 (“weekly”), 8 (“a few times a week”) to 9 (“daily”). The mean church attendance of the studied sample was M ¼ 4.10, SD ¼ 2.29. 4.2.1.3. Religious identification. Roman Catholic religious identification was measured with two items: “To what extent do you identify yourself as a religious person?” and “To what extent do you identify yourself as a Roman Catholic?” As Polish society is almost monoreligious, that is, most of the population describe themselves as Roman Catholics, no questions concerning other religions were asked. Participants responded on Likert-type scales ranging from one (“not at all”) to nine (“very strongly”). Responses to these two questions measuring religious identification were correlated, r ¼ .72, p < 0.001 and the mean score of these two items was used as a composite measure of religious identification. The mean religious identification in the studied sample was M ¼ 3.67, SD ¼ 1.82. 4.2.2. Dependent variables 4.2.2.1. Positive affect. Negative affect. Participants received the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) in its Polish form (Brzozowski, 2010). They responded to 20 questions (ten for each variable) on Likert-type scales ranging from one (“not at all”) to five (“extremely”). The mean scores of the positive (a ¼ 0.90) and negative (a ¼ 0.88) affect subscales formed the final scores used in analyses (positive and negative affect).
4. Method
4.2.2.2. Self-esteem. Participants responded to the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) in its Polish form (qaguna, Lachowicz-Tabaczek, & Dzwonkowska, 2007). Responses were given on Likert-type scales ranging from one (“strongly disagree”) to four (“strongly agree”). Reliability was high (a ¼ 0.89). The format of Likert-type scales in original measures (PANSAS, RSES) was kept, whereas one-item or two-item measurement of the independent variables required a lengthier format. Therefore the scales ranged from four in RSES items to nine in church attendance and religious identification items.
4.1. Participants
4.3. Procedure
Participants were recruited from among psychology students at the University of Warsaw. They participated voluntarily in a study presented as a “survey of emotions and mood.” The sample consisted of 73 students, 17 men and 56 women. Their ages ranged
Participants responded to the questionnaire on a computer screen in a typical university room. The room either had a religious display (cross) in a visible place on a wall or did not have such a display (see Fig. 1a and b). Participants were randomly assigned to
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
Fig. 1. a and b. University room with and without crucifix display (stimulus used in the study).
13
14
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
one of the two conditions and entered the same room, in which the experimenter was either installing or removing a cross from the wall. The dark-wooden crucifix (Fig. 2) with a corpus (metal depiction of the body of Christ) and small “INRI” acronym (rather invisible from the participants perspective) used in this study exactly resembled typical crosses present in Polish public places, such as the cross in the plenary hall of the Polish Parliament (Sejm). The room where the study was performed is typically used by junior faculty members (as laboratory or temporal office space), but it is not used for teaching purposes, so most participants were in the room for the first time e thus it is unlikely that they had preconceptions about religious symbols on the wall. After the study none of the participants declared awareness of the cross as a subject of the study. 5. Results First, we found no significant main effects of our manipulation (cross display) on any of the dependent measures of psychological state: there was no significant main effect on self-esteem, neither on negative nor positive affect. In order to evaluate the effects of Christian religious symbols on the psychological state of participants of different levels of religiosity, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses with cross display as a dichotomous independent variable, church attendance or declared religious identification as continuous moderators, and three dependent measures of psychological state: positive affect, negative affect and self-esteem (Table 1). In the case of significant interaction effects, we conducted further analyses to probe the direction of significant interactions. As seen in Table 1, the only significant interactions were observed on negative affect as a dependent variable; there were no significant interactions on self-esteem and positive affect. Cross display significantly interacted with declared religious identification (DR2 ¼ .07, F ¼ 5.62, p ¼ 0.02) and with church attendance
Table 1 Regression analyses: predicting three aspects of psychological well-being from cross display, two forms of religious affiliation (declared religiosity and church attendance), and interaction terms of cross display and religious affiliation. Predictor
Positive affect B
SE B t
1a. Cross .27 .17 1b. Religiosity .02 .05 1c. Cross religiosity .04 .09 2a. Cross .24 .16 2b. Church attendance .07 .04 2c. Cross church .06 .07 attendance
1.53 .44 .45 1.40 1.98 .86
Negative affect
Self-esteem
B
SE B t
B
.08 .05 .18 .09 .03 .13
.14 .04 .08 .14 .03 .06
SE B t
.60 .09 .13 1.31 .00 .03 2.37* .00 .07 .66 .07 .13 .98 .05 .02 2.13* .05 .06
.70 .09 .06 .56 1.69 .92
Note. *p < 0.05.
(DR2 ¼ .06, F ¼ 4.53, p ¼ 0.04). No other interactions yielded any effects. Fig. 3 shows the pattern of the two significant interactions using a simple-slope approach (the slopes were estimated at -1SD, M, and 1SD of declared religious identification and of declared church attendance). As can be seen on Figs. 3 and 4, participants high and low in religious affiliation differed in their reactions to cross display. To determine the statistical significance of the effects at specific values of the moderators, we followed instructions given by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006) for using the JohnsoneNeyman method (Johnson & Neyman, 1936). This technique enabled us to identify the one-tailed regions of significance of the simple effects of cross display on negative affect of people differing in religious identification and church attendance d that is, the exact levels of religious identification at which the presence of the cross was significantly associated with changes in affect among participants, and the direction of this effect. This test indicated that the presence of the cross reduced negative affective states among participants of strongly declared religious identification (the effect was significant for participants scoring 5.23 or more on the religious identification scale) and participants who declared frequent church attendance (the effect was significant for participants who scored 6.51 or more on the church attendance scale e meaning weekly or more frequent attendance). The negative effect or reduction did not reach significance among people of low religious identification and less frequent church attendance. Consistently with predictions, exposure to religious displays in a university setting decreased negative affect among religious participants e and the negative effects for non-religious participants were less pronounced. 6. Discussion
Fig. 2. Crucifix e stimulus material used in the present study.
The interaction of cross display and church attendance or religious identification demonstrates that people involved in religious practices who identified themselves as Roman Catholics were affected by the basic Roman Catholic symbol differently from those less involved and less self-identifying as Roman Catholics. Although the mono-sectarian nature of the Polish religious spectrum practically precludes contributions to the results from followers of other religions or atheists, the mainstream religion’s followers did differ in terms of how strongly they identified with the in-group. In the present study, the small number of non-RCs did not allow for a straightforward answer to the question: “ How are atheists affected by a Roman Catholic symbol?” The effect of cross display did not reach significance in the case of those who rarely attended Mass and low-religious identification participants, although the direction shown in Figs. 3 and 4 is clear. The statistically significant effect, as expected, pertained to frequently attending and highly religious participants. Why did the cross alleviate negative emotions among religious individuals in the experimental setting?
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
15
2 1.9
Negative affect
1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5
Cross
1.4
No cross
1.3 1.2 1.1 1 Low (-1 SD)
Moderate (M)
High (+1 SD)
Catholic religiosity Fig. 3. The effects of cross display on participants at different levels of declared religiosity.
The results could be interpreted in the framework of social identity theory, where one of its fringe theses, the self-esteem hypothesis, posits boosting self-esteem as a leading motive responsible for the fact that people strive for positive social identity and want to make favorable intergroup comparisons (Hogg & Abrams, 1990). Also, group leaders who favor members of the in-group, opposing the out-group positions, and who are more identityaffirming, enjoy stronger support from their followers (Haslam & Platow, 2001). An explanation of how the affect might change by processing important values have recently been proposed by Crocker, Niiya, and Mischkowski (2008). They showed that participants who elaborated on an important value reported more positive otherdirected feelings (such as love and connection) than did other participants. In a separate study, they showed that loving and connected feelings, not self-directed feelings, completely accounted for the effect of value affirmation on the acceptance of information about a health threat. The results were interpreted by the authors as follows: value affirmation reduces defensiveness via selftranscendence rather than self-integrity (Crocker et al., 2008). Thus, self-esteem is not a mediator of the effect of value confirmation on affective state. The exposure of a cross, as a reminder of an important value, soothed negative emotions but did not influence
self-esteem. It triggered thinking about a value, but did not provoke participants to think about themselves as good people. The results of our study turned out to be similar to those of Schmitt et al. (2010), who studied the effects of Christmas display in a Canadian college. In general, authors found that the effects of religious symbols were dependent on students’ religious identification. But contrary to our findings, the specific effects of the Christmas display were obtained for positive, but not negative, mood and self-assurance, which were increased in celebrators and decreased in non-celebrators. Celebrators also showed increased joviality in the display condition, and the only cost they incurred under these circumstances was increased guilt. In another study (Schmitt et al., 2010; Study 2), when the participants were divided according to declared religion, Christians generally reacted to the display in a positive way, whereas other religious groups (Sikhs, Buddhists) reacted negatively to the exposure to a Christmas display. The differential effect was found for positive mood and for social and appearance-based self-esteem. Among the discrete emotions measured, self-assuredness and attentiveness were affected by the display among non-Christians, with reductions in their sense of inclusion as a mediator. The only negative effect in the display inflicted on non-Christians was guilt, as in the previous study. In the presented study “guilt” was only one of the ten
2 1.9
Negative affect
1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5
Cross
1.4
No cross
1.3 1.2 1.1 1 Rare (-1 SD)
Moderate (M)
Frequent (+ 1SD)
Church attendance Fig. 4. The effects of cross display on participants with different frequency of declared church attendance.
16
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
constituents of “negative affect” and thus was not considered as a separate variable. The discrepancies between the results of our study and the previous studies (Schmitt et al., 2010) could be caused by the different stimulus materials. We focused on a dominant and clearly religious symbol (crucifix), whereas Schmitt et al. studied the effects of a rather inclusive and subtle religious symbol (a Christmas tree). The Christmas tree has much more positive connotations than the crucifix’s body of Christ, which tells of suffering and eventual death. This might explain why the most pronounced effects of our study were observed on negative affect, whereas in Schmitt et al. the most pronounced effects were observed on positive affective states. On the other hand, the results of the two lines of research have much in common e all observed effects were moderated by participants’ religious identification. Thus, we gathered additional evidence that exposure to Christian religious symbols has a positive impact on religious Christians, while not on the non-religious and atheists. Finally, we found additional support for Mazumdar and Mazumdar’s (2009) theses about the sacralization of life spaces by religious people. The religiously neutral space of a public university elicited negative affective states in very religious students. The presence of a religious symbol in a room could have created a sense of emotional connectedness (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2009) that resulted in less negative affective states. As there were no effects on self-esteem measures, one might expect other mediating mechanisms e such as reduced stress, which is known to play an important role in negative affective states (Watson et al., 1988). This interpretation should be tested in additional studies with statistical mediational models. One important caveat of the study is related to the highly religiously homogenous environment characteristic of Poland. In more varied circumstances the outcome of the experiment might have included different reactions to the RC symbol in subjects professing another religion. Another limitation of the study is the fact that the study subjects were predominantly female students. Inclusion of more male subjects would provide a broader sample basis, especially if more individuals detached from religion were also included. Although the experiment had limitations because of the culturespecific nature of the symbol, the symbol itself is present in public spaces to such an extent that it is impossible to replace it with something else in experimental designs, if the ecological validity of the study is to be maintained. Generating a positive influence on believers, possibly by activating thoughts about their religious values and social identity, the cross could also negatively affect non-believers and their feelings. 7. Policy implications Policy regarding the display of religious symbols in public space1 varies from state to state in current European countries e ranging from prohibition of any symbols in public schools in France to the full acceptance of religious symbols in Parliament in other countries (e.g. Poland; Gruber, 2010). Similar issues are also widely discussed in the USA. In 2011, hundreds of residents of Whitefish, Montana, protested in order to keep the figure of Jesus Christ on the federal land of one of their national forests e even though the statue was perceived as a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by other inhabitants (Frosch, 2011). This issue e
1 We define public space as a social space open and accessible to all people e the “common ground where people carry out the functional and ritual activities that bind a community, whether in the normal routines of daily life or in periodic festivities” (Carr, Francis, Rivlin, & Stone, 1992, p. xi).
like several similar ones (related to displays of the Ten Commandments or crosses) e ended up before the Supreme Court of the United States. Such disagreements become most intense in the case of public education. Vibrant debates about religious symbols have taken place in the United States (presence of a cross at Texas A&M University campus; Ludwig, 2011), Poland (students’ protest against a cross in public high school in Wroclaw; Har1ukowicz, 2009) and Italy (the case of the school crucifix in Abano Therme ended at the European Court of Human Rights; ECHR, 2011). The question of the presence of religious symbols in public schools creates a tension between the secular, non-sectarian character of the public sphere and the basic freedoms of thought, conscience and religion that form the basis of modern democracies. These crucial aspects of the debate about religious symbols in schools are well covered in contemporary legal literature (e.g. Rorive, 2009; Troper, 2009). What seems to be missing in the debate about crosses in the public sphere is an assessment of the psychological consequences that these symbols might have for religious and non-religious students. The main aim of our article was to deliver some empirical knowledge about how religious symbols affect people’s psychological well-being in a relatively neutral, experimental situation. Although this first exploration was not intended to inform policies, we believe that further studies of these issues in real-life contexts could have substantial influence on legal and political decisions. The growing secularization of Western societies, including Polish society, means that further research will be valuable, as its results could be applied in public debate. Acknowledgment This work was funded by a Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) FOCUS grant and Public Research Funding (BST) to the first author. We would like to thank Manana Jaworska and Mateusz Olechowski for their substantial help in conducting this study, as well as to Marcin Ste˛ pniak for his help in data collection. We are grateful to Jasia Pietrzak for her comments to the first version of this manuscript. References Brzozowski, P. (2010). Skala Uczuc Pozytywnych i Negatywnych SUPIN. Polska adaptacja skali PANAS Davida Watsona i Lee Anny Clark. Podre˛ cznik [Positive and negative affect scale SUPIN: Polish adaptation of David Watson and Lee Ann Clark PANAS scale manual]. Warsaw: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045e1060. Cooper Marcus, C. (1992). Environmental memories. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 87e112). New York, NY: Plenum. Crocker, J., Niiya, Y., & Mischkowski, D. (2008). Why does writing about important values reduce defensiveness? Self-affirmation and the role of positive otherdirected feelings. Psychological Science, 17, 740e747. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ECHR. (2011). Grand chamber. Case of Lautsi and others v. Italy. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights. Frosch, D. (2011). Legal battle ignites over Jesus statue in Montana. The New York Times. November 24. Retrieved from. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/ in-montana-jesus-statue-is-focus-of-legal-battle.html. Galindo, M. P. G., & Rodriguez, J. A. C. (2000). Environmental aesthetics and psychological well-being: Relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain, 4(1), 13e27. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Gruber, R. E. (2010). In a changing Europe, debate about state crosses. JTA. February 11 Retrieved from. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/02/11/1010598/in-achanging-europe-debate-about-state-crosses.
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17 Har1ukowicz, J. (2009). Młodzi nie chca˛ krzyz_ a, liceum zrobi sale˛ do religii [Young people do not want the crucifix; high school prepare separate class for religious education]. Gazeta Wyborcza. December 2. http://wroclaw.gazeta.pl/wroclaw/1, 35771, 7320659, Mlodzi_nie_chca_krzyza__liceum_zrobi_sale_do_religii.html#ixzz1uUOtnFtV. Haslam, S. A., Ellemers, N., Reicher, S. D., Reynolds, K. J., & Schmitt, M. T. (2010). The social identity perspective tomorrow: Opportunities and avenues for advance. In T. Postmes, & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Rediscovering social identity: Core sources (pp. 357e379). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469e1479. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2011). The affective quality of human-natural environment relationships. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 451e469. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem, and social identity. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory. Constructive and critical advances (pp. 44e70). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Homel, R., & Burns, A. (1989). Environmental quality and the wellbeing of children. Social Indicators Research, 21, 133e158. Hummon, D. M. (1989). House, home and identity in contemporary American culture. In S. M. Low, & E. Chambers (Eds.), Housing culture and design: A comparative perspective (pp. 207e228). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57e93. Kahlmeyer, S., Schindler, C., Grize, L., & Braun-Fahrländer, C. (2001). Perceived environmental housing quality and wellbeing of movers. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 55(10), 708e715. Knapp, M. L. (1980). Essentials of nonverbal communication. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Kobielus, S. (2000). Krzyz_ Chrystusa. Od znaku i figury do symbolu i metafor [Christ’s cross: From sign and figure to symbol and metaphor]. Tyniec: Wydawnictwo Benedyktynów. Ludwig, M. (2011). Crosses on tower stir complaint at A&M-S.A. San Antonio Express. November 3. Retrieved from. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/ article/Crosses-stir-complaint-at-A-M-2247007.php. Mazumdar, S. (2000). Autocratic control and urban design: The case of Tehran, Iran. Journal of Urban Design, 5, 317e338. Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (1993). Sacred space and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 231e242. Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2001). Rethinking public and private space: Religion and women in Muslim society. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 18(4), 302e324. Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2004). Religion and place attachment: A study of sacred places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 385e397.
17
Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2009). Religion, immigration, and home making in diaspora: Hindu space in Southern California. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 256e266. Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1981). Interior office design and visitor response: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 646e650. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879e885. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437e448. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57e83. Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion. Ribak-Rosenthal, N., & Russell, T. T. (1994). Dealing with religious differences in December: A school counselor’s role. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 28, 295e301. Rorive, I. (2009). Religious symbols in the public space: In search of a European answer. Cardozo Law Review, 30, 2669e2714. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rowles, G. (1983). Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 299e313. Ruesch, J., & Kees, W. (1966). Nonverbal communication: Notes on the visual perception of human relations. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Schmitt, M. T., Davies, K., Hung, M., & Wright, S. C. (2010). Identity moderates the effects of Christmas display on mood, self-esteem and inclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1017e1022. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61e76). London: Academic Press. Troper, M. (2009). Sovereignty and laïcité. Cardozo Law Review, 30, 2561e2575. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063e1070. Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1976). Personal space in the faculty office: Desk placement and the student-faculty interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 529e532. qaguna, M., Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K., & Dzwonkowska, I. (2007). Skala Samooceny SES Morrisa Rosenberga e polska adaptacja metody [Morris Rosenberg selfesteem scale: Polish adaptation]. Psychologia Społeczna, 2, 164e176.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
Psychological consequences of religious symbols in public space: Crucifix display at a public university Michal Bilewicz a, *, Jaroslaw Klebaniuk b a b
Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Stawki 5/7, 00-183 Warszawa, Poland Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Poland
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 14 March 2013
The question of the presence of religious symbols (e.g. crosses) in public space is an important topic in public discourse, leading to many political disagreements and legal disputes. What seems to be missing in the debate about crosses in public space (schools, universities, hospitals) is an assessment of the psychological consequences that these symbols might have for religious and non-religious people visiting, studying and working in such places. The present experimental study examined the influence of religious displays in a public university room on the psychological state of students: their self-esteem, as well as positive and negative affect. The study found that the religious symbol reduced negative affect among students who identify strongly with religion and those who frequently attend religious ceremonies. The negative effects on non-religious students were less pronounced. This result is discussed with reference to self-affirmation theory, environmental psychological theories and more recent findings on the social consequences of more subtle religious exposures. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Religious symbols Self-affirmation Place identity Social identity Negative affect Symbolism
“A crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol (.) It cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities,” pronounced the European Court of Human Rights on the presence of crucifixes in classrooms of state schools (ECHR, 2011, p. 29). This sentence was preceded by a large debate about the presence of religious symbols in European public schools. Such debates are linked also to a more general question about the impact of religious symbols present in living space on people’s well-being and psychological functioning. 1. Space and subjective well-being Why do we happen to be happy? Why are we sometimes unhappy? Answers to these questions usually refer to our dispositions, particularly our temperament, and the material conditions of our life, our abilities and efforts, proximate social environment and systemic socio-economic factors. It is less noticeable that one of the determinants of our subjective well-being is the physical space we inhabit and how it is construed. In a Swiss study, an improvement in perceived environmental housing quality increased the wellbeing of inhabitants (Kahlmeyer, Schindler, Grize, & Braun* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Bilewicz). 0272-4944/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.03.001
Fahrländer, 2001). In Australian studies, before and after controls for family composition, social class and culture, the children living in commercial streets, particularly in inner-city areas, stood out from all the others in their feelings of loneliness, dislike of other children and feelings of rejection, worry, fear, anger and unhappiness (Homel & Burns, 1989). Not only features of the environment, but also aesthetic preferences seem to be significant. Galindo and Rodriguez (2000) found that affective responses (comfort, arousal, sadness, boredom, tranquility and safety) were associated with aesthetic judgments of landscapes in which people lived. A more recent British study found a relationship between natural environments and experiential feeling states e both positive and negative (Hinds & Sparks, 2011). The effects of physical surroundings on psychological states are not necessarily direct, however, and could also be mediated by group-related factors, self-concepts and social identities. It is well established that social identity e derived from group membership e is a crucial source of positive self-esteem and well-being (Tajfel, 1978). People suffer psychologically when they are convinced that their in-group has not been accepted or has been excluded from an important social context such as a neighborhood, workplace or classroom (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007). Recent findings suggest that physical space severely affects people’s social identity (Haslam, Ellemers, Reicher, Reynolds, & Schmitt, 2010). For example, Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, and Steele (2009) found in a series of studies that the
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
presence of objects stereotypically associated with computer science (e.g. comic books, electronics) reduced women’s interest in science, the effect being mediated by a reduced sense of belonging within that context. Thus, construal of one’s physical surroundings is affected by one’s social identities. In environmental psychology, self-identity has often been related to place attachment, the concept describing a person’s emotions connected to a place (Cooper Marcus, 1992; Relph, 1976). Place attachment is “intimately linked to preservation of a sense of personal identity” (Rowles, 1983, p. 300) and objects are invested with symbolic meaning connected with past experiences and memories (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981). Other authors have developed the concept of “place identity,” claiming that it is a far more complex phenomenon than place attachment, as it goes beyond emotions and the sense of belonging to a particular place, including attitudes, values, thoughts, beliefs, meanings and behavioral tendencies influenced by physical space (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Places that were cultural settings for childhood socialization become models for the future selves of their inhabitants. Thus, objects in childhood homes (e.g. religious artifacts) not only express individual identity, but can also shape it (Hummon, 1989). Being in religious places connected with a positive social identity, and dealing with objects important to a religion-based social identity, could therefore affect the sense of subjective well-being. Another interesting observation about relations between people and objects was made by the sociological studies of interaction (Goffman, 1967). This tradition of theorizing focuses on demeanor as the expression of people’s manifestations of self-image to the audience in everyday action. Each action toward another person or inanimate object can communicate self-image as well as deference (respect of another person). From this perspective people’s behavior toward religious symbols in public space represents not only their religious behavior but could act as a ritual of self-presentation in everyday life. This corroborates with the findings of environmental psychology that suggest that placing any object in public space can serve as a social ritual and a process of social structuring. Seminal studies by Zweigenhaft (1976) showed that faculty members who placed desks between themselves and students created psychological borders that represented status hierarchies (such settings were preferred only by senior faculty). Such spatial behavior is linked to students’ feelings and the formality of the professor (Morrow & McElroy, 1981). Similarly, locating a religious symbol in a public space might not only be a form of identity performance but also a status-defining action that creates stratification between ingroup (religious) and out-group members (non-religious). 2. Religious symbols’ effect on individuals’ psychological states Symbolic aspects of environment have been of interest to the environmental psychologist for several decades (see, for example, Goffman, 1967; Knapp, 1980; Rapoport, 1982; Ruesch & Kees, 1966; Zweigenhaft, 1976). Religious symbols have only attracted attention more recently, however (e.g. Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 1993, 2001, 2004, 2009). The presence of religious symbols in the public sphere is widespread and distinct. In Western culture, these symbols mainly convey meanings pertaining to Christianity, although the multicultural nature of most Western societies (e.g. North American) is expressed in the presence of symbols specific to other religions, for example, Islam, Buddhism or Judaism. Some of the symbols are revealed by believers themselves (e.g. crosses worn on necks, mezuzahs on doorposts), but others are present in public institutions and spaces (crucifixes in classrooms, large seasonal displays for Christmas or Hanukkah). Given that society is
11
diversified in terms of religious beliefs, the effects of exposure to these religious symbols can vary. Arbitrary decisions by a powerful individual or a small group of people in shaping urban space are a typical case of “autocratic control” (Mazumdar, 2000). This form of control can take several forms, which include control by imposition, by creative, demonstrative, destructive, or self-glorifying intervention, by selective non-intervention, by oversight and by supervision. The common core of all those forms is the imposition, not always official, of urban solutions that affect social life and psychological state. Control can be derived from and be closely linked to not only the political, administrative and social, but also the religious structure of society. Religious symbolism is present not only in outdoor urban space, but also in more proximate indoor environments. This is especially important in the case of immigrants, who try to create space to cultivate their religion, regardless of the majority. In an ethnographic naturalistic field study, Mazumdar and Mazumdar (2009) offered the concepts of “home as religious space” and “ecology of religion” to describe how religious artifacts and landscaping helped immigrants renew connections with past experiences, environments, and people. They found that the Hindus in South California transform their newly acquired secular residences or houses into what they consider to be appropriate space by creating altars, which become a repository of religious objects and artifacts, and by incorporating various forms of religious art into their homes. Thus, the worshipers organize their private space religiously in order to elevate their wellbeing. Mazumdar and Mazumdar (1993) posit that religion through rituals connects people to places, and places as settings for sacred behavior and socialization connect people to religion. In Christian cultures, emblems with a religious connotation include crosses and other installations less literally connected with religious mythology but popular because they derive from age-old traditions. Decorating Christmas trees is one of the most widespread seasonal customs in the latter category. As a cultural symbol, it marks an individual as coming from a Christian background. Schmitt, Davies, Hung, and Wright (2010) examined the psychological consequences of a Christmas display on participants celebrating vs. not celebrating Christmas and, in another study, those identified as Christian, Buddhist, or Sikh. In the former study, the display enhanced well-being of celebrators and harmed that of non-celebrators. In the latter study, the negative effect of the display on non-Christians appeared to be mediated by reduced feelings of inclusion. In neither study did the participants, including non-celebrators nor non-Christians, expect the Christmas display to have a negative effect on them. Actually, they expected a relatively positive effect. The researchers interpret this result as a case of influencing wellbeing by identity-relevant symbols in physical space. According to them, the local physical environment has consequences for intraand intergroup relations (see Haslam et al., 2010). Members of minority groups in the presence of a dominant cultural symbol can experience diminished feelings of inclusion, and suffer from negative mood and low self-esteem. The presence of a dominant culture symbol communicates who defines the norms of the local context, reminding those who do not share the dominant culture that they are not mainstream. The presence of dominant cultural symbols can also have positive effects for those whose identities are reflected in dominant culture (Schmitt et al., 2010). Christmas display is a part of a wider environmental field of influence. The December school curriculum often takes Christmas into account and it influences children’s well-being. Ribak-Rosenthal and Russell (1994) found that US children’s emotion and self-concepts in response to Christmas holiday celebrations in public schools differed, depending on their cultural background. Non-Christian children experienced a significant decrease in happiness and satisfaction from October to December. A significantly greater percentage
12
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
of non-Christian children indicated feeling negative during holiday celebrations than did their Christian counterparts: 27% of the nonChristian children felt “different,” 26% felt “excluded,” 24% felt “annoyed,” 23% felt “unpopular,” and 20% felt “unloved” (RibakRosenthal & Russell, 1994). The results strongly support the thesis that being exposed to socio-cultural stimuli of the religious kind could harm the emotional state of people whose social identity is different from that relevant to the stimuli. Christmas and its symbols in public space could thus be the cause of the diminished well-being of believers of other religions. The question of whether more overt religious symbols can have similar effects may therefore also be raised. The precise research question was formulated as follows: what effects do religious symbols, namely crucifixes in rooms, have on religious and non-religious persons’ affect and self-esteem? 3. How cross display affects psychological state? The studies described so far did not take into account nonseasonal Christian religious symbols. In Poland, Christmas tree is usually displayed from just before Christmas Eve until January 6 (the Epiphany), i.e. for two weeks only. The impact of a short-term Christmas tree display is therefore different from that of the crucifix, which is displayed throughout the year. More importantly, the meaning of the crucifix is different. It symbolizes the Passion, which according to the Gospels and the well-known Roman Catholic dogma, provided humankind with the promise of salvation and the prospect of eternal life. Therefore, the cross seems to be a symbol much more powerful and deeply rooted in religious meaning than the Christmas tree. Thus the crucifix seems more representative of Christian identity than the tree (Kobielus, 2000). Its constant presence in a space could have much more pronounced effect than the two-week presence of the Christmas decoration. The study of the crucifix’s effect on psychological states has additional merits in comparison with research based on the Christmas tree display. The main aim of the present study was to examine the effects of crucifix display on affect and self-esteem of university students. From prior theories of social identity and place identity, we hypothesized that the mere presence of a religious symbol (cross) in a university room would improve the emotional state of religious (Christian) participants by affirming their religious identity. We predicted negative effects for non-religious participants, for whom the symbol would be a sign of the autocratic control of a dominant religious system to which they did not belong. The present study was conducted in Poland e a country where the symbolic dominance of the Roman Catholic Church is clearly visible. New churches are built even in crowded housing areas, among residential buildings, making contact with religious symbols inevitable. Crosses are visible in many public institutions, such as schools, offices and hospitals e making Poland one of the least religiously neutral European countries (Gruber, 2010). Recently, the presence of religious symbols in Poland became the topic of a public debate that included parliamentary disputes between members of conservative and liberal parties (Har1ukowicz, 2009). This context makes Poland an ideal place for a study of the consequences of cross display in public places.
from 18 to 27 (M ¼ 21.42, SD ¼ 1.98). Participants received a small reward (chocolate bar) for taking part in this study. 4.2. Measures 4.2.1. Independent variables 4.2.1.1. Cross display. The experimental manipulation was displaying vs. not displaying the crucifix on the wall over the computer where the study was conducted. The crucifix used in the study was similar to the ones commonly displayed in local institutions of education: it had a dark brown color contrasting with the white wall. The crucifix included a realistic depiction of Jesus’ body (corpus). There were no letters or any inscriptions on the crucifix. 4.2.1.2. Church attendance. Participants were asked how often they performed several listed activities. The list included “attending church” among nine other filler activities (e.g. “reading books,” “shopping,” “family dinner,” “visiting library”). Participants rated each activity on a Likert-type scale that included the following options: 1 (“never”), 2 (“once every few years”), 3 (“annually”), 4 (“a few times a year”), 5 (“monthly”), 6 (“2 or 3 times a month”), 7 (“weekly”), 8 (“a few times a week”) to 9 (“daily”). The mean church attendance of the studied sample was M ¼ 4.10, SD ¼ 2.29. 4.2.1.3. Religious identification. Roman Catholic religious identification was measured with two items: “To what extent do you identify yourself as a religious person?” and “To what extent do you identify yourself as a Roman Catholic?” As Polish society is almost monoreligious, that is, most of the population describe themselves as Roman Catholics, no questions concerning other religions were asked. Participants responded on Likert-type scales ranging from one (“not at all”) to nine (“very strongly”). Responses to these two questions measuring religious identification were correlated, r ¼ .72, p < 0.001 and the mean score of these two items was used as a composite measure of religious identification. The mean religious identification in the studied sample was M ¼ 3.67, SD ¼ 1.82. 4.2.2. Dependent variables 4.2.2.1. Positive affect. Negative affect. Participants received the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) in its Polish form (Brzozowski, 2010). They responded to 20 questions (ten for each variable) on Likert-type scales ranging from one (“not at all”) to five (“extremely”). The mean scores of the positive (a ¼ 0.90) and negative (a ¼ 0.88) affect subscales formed the final scores used in analyses (positive and negative affect).
4. Method
4.2.2.2. Self-esteem. Participants responded to the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) in its Polish form (qaguna, Lachowicz-Tabaczek, & Dzwonkowska, 2007). Responses were given on Likert-type scales ranging from one (“strongly disagree”) to four (“strongly agree”). Reliability was high (a ¼ 0.89). The format of Likert-type scales in original measures (PANSAS, RSES) was kept, whereas one-item or two-item measurement of the independent variables required a lengthier format. Therefore the scales ranged from four in RSES items to nine in church attendance and religious identification items.
4.1. Participants
4.3. Procedure
Participants were recruited from among psychology students at the University of Warsaw. They participated voluntarily in a study presented as a “survey of emotions and mood.” The sample consisted of 73 students, 17 men and 56 women. Their ages ranged
Participants responded to the questionnaire on a computer screen in a typical university room. The room either had a religious display (cross) in a visible place on a wall or did not have such a display (see Fig. 1a and b). Participants were randomly assigned to
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
Fig. 1. a and b. University room with and without crucifix display (stimulus used in the study).
13
14
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
one of the two conditions and entered the same room, in which the experimenter was either installing or removing a cross from the wall. The dark-wooden crucifix (Fig. 2) with a corpus (metal depiction of the body of Christ) and small “INRI” acronym (rather invisible from the participants perspective) used in this study exactly resembled typical crosses present in Polish public places, such as the cross in the plenary hall of the Polish Parliament (Sejm). The room where the study was performed is typically used by junior faculty members (as laboratory or temporal office space), but it is not used for teaching purposes, so most participants were in the room for the first time e thus it is unlikely that they had preconceptions about religious symbols on the wall. After the study none of the participants declared awareness of the cross as a subject of the study. 5. Results First, we found no significant main effects of our manipulation (cross display) on any of the dependent measures of psychological state: there was no significant main effect on self-esteem, neither on negative nor positive affect. In order to evaluate the effects of Christian religious symbols on the psychological state of participants of different levels of religiosity, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses with cross display as a dichotomous independent variable, church attendance or declared religious identification as continuous moderators, and three dependent measures of psychological state: positive affect, negative affect and self-esteem (Table 1). In the case of significant interaction effects, we conducted further analyses to probe the direction of significant interactions. As seen in Table 1, the only significant interactions were observed on negative affect as a dependent variable; there were no significant interactions on self-esteem and positive affect. Cross display significantly interacted with declared religious identification (DR2 ¼ .07, F ¼ 5.62, p ¼ 0.02) and with church attendance
Table 1 Regression analyses: predicting three aspects of psychological well-being from cross display, two forms of religious affiliation (declared religiosity and church attendance), and interaction terms of cross display and religious affiliation. Predictor
Positive affect B
SE B t
1a. Cross .27 .17 1b. Religiosity .02 .05 1c. Cross religiosity .04 .09 2a. Cross .24 .16 2b. Church attendance .07 .04 2c. Cross church .06 .07 attendance
1.53 .44 .45 1.40 1.98 .86
Negative affect
Self-esteem
B
SE B t
B
.08 .05 .18 .09 .03 .13
.14 .04 .08 .14 .03 .06
SE B t
.60 .09 .13 1.31 .00 .03 2.37* .00 .07 .66 .07 .13 .98 .05 .02 2.13* .05 .06
.70 .09 .06 .56 1.69 .92
Note. *p < 0.05.
(DR2 ¼ .06, F ¼ 4.53, p ¼ 0.04). No other interactions yielded any effects. Fig. 3 shows the pattern of the two significant interactions using a simple-slope approach (the slopes were estimated at -1SD, M, and 1SD of declared religious identification and of declared church attendance). As can be seen on Figs. 3 and 4, participants high and low in religious affiliation differed in their reactions to cross display. To determine the statistical significance of the effects at specific values of the moderators, we followed instructions given by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006) for using the JohnsoneNeyman method (Johnson & Neyman, 1936). This technique enabled us to identify the one-tailed regions of significance of the simple effects of cross display on negative affect of people differing in religious identification and church attendance d that is, the exact levels of religious identification at which the presence of the cross was significantly associated with changes in affect among participants, and the direction of this effect. This test indicated that the presence of the cross reduced negative affective states among participants of strongly declared religious identification (the effect was significant for participants scoring 5.23 or more on the religious identification scale) and participants who declared frequent church attendance (the effect was significant for participants who scored 6.51 or more on the church attendance scale e meaning weekly or more frequent attendance). The negative effect or reduction did not reach significance among people of low religious identification and less frequent church attendance. Consistently with predictions, exposure to religious displays in a university setting decreased negative affect among religious participants e and the negative effects for non-religious participants were less pronounced. 6. Discussion
Fig. 2. Crucifix e stimulus material used in the present study.
The interaction of cross display and church attendance or religious identification demonstrates that people involved in religious practices who identified themselves as Roman Catholics were affected by the basic Roman Catholic symbol differently from those less involved and less self-identifying as Roman Catholics. Although the mono-sectarian nature of the Polish religious spectrum practically precludes contributions to the results from followers of other religions or atheists, the mainstream religion’s followers did differ in terms of how strongly they identified with the in-group. In the present study, the small number of non-RCs did not allow for a straightforward answer to the question: “ How are atheists affected by a Roman Catholic symbol?” The effect of cross display did not reach significance in the case of those who rarely attended Mass and low-religious identification participants, although the direction shown in Figs. 3 and 4 is clear. The statistically significant effect, as expected, pertained to frequently attending and highly religious participants. Why did the cross alleviate negative emotions among religious individuals in the experimental setting?
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
15
2 1.9
Negative affect
1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5
Cross
1.4
No cross
1.3 1.2 1.1 1 Low (-1 SD)
Moderate (M)
High (+1 SD)
Catholic religiosity Fig. 3. The effects of cross display on participants at different levels of declared religiosity.
The results could be interpreted in the framework of social identity theory, where one of its fringe theses, the self-esteem hypothesis, posits boosting self-esteem as a leading motive responsible for the fact that people strive for positive social identity and want to make favorable intergroup comparisons (Hogg & Abrams, 1990). Also, group leaders who favor members of the in-group, opposing the out-group positions, and who are more identityaffirming, enjoy stronger support from their followers (Haslam & Platow, 2001). An explanation of how the affect might change by processing important values have recently been proposed by Crocker, Niiya, and Mischkowski (2008). They showed that participants who elaborated on an important value reported more positive otherdirected feelings (such as love and connection) than did other participants. In a separate study, they showed that loving and connected feelings, not self-directed feelings, completely accounted for the effect of value affirmation on the acceptance of information about a health threat. The results were interpreted by the authors as follows: value affirmation reduces defensiveness via selftranscendence rather than self-integrity (Crocker et al., 2008). Thus, self-esteem is not a mediator of the effect of value confirmation on affective state. The exposure of a cross, as a reminder of an important value, soothed negative emotions but did not influence
self-esteem. It triggered thinking about a value, but did not provoke participants to think about themselves as good people. The results of our study turned out to be similar to those of Schmitt et al. (2010), who studied the effects of Christmas display in a Canadian college. In general, authors found that the effects of religious symbols were dependent on students’ religious identification. But contrary to our findings, the specific effects of the Christmas display were obtained for positive, but not negative, mood and self-assurance, which were increased in celebrators and decreased in non-celebrators. Celebrators also showed increased joviality in the display condition, and the only cost they incurred under these circumstances was increased guilt. In another study (Schmitt et al., 2010; Study 2), when the participants were divided according to declared religion, Christians generally reacted to the display in a positive way, whereas other religious groups (Sikhs, Buddhists) reacted negatively to the exposure to a Christmas display. The differential effect was found for positive mood and for social and appearance-based self-esteem. Among the discrete emotions measured, self-assuredness and attentiveness were affected by the display among non-Christians, with reductions in their sense of inclusion as a mediator. The only negative effect in the display inflicted on non-Christians was guilt, as in the previous study. In the presented study “guilt” was only one of the ten
2 1.9
Negative affect
1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5
Cross
1.4
No cross
1.3 1.2 1.1 1 Rare (-1 SD)
Moderate (M)
Frequent (+ 1SD)
Church attendance Fig. 4. The effects of cross display on participants with different frequency of declared church attendance.
16
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17
constituents of “negative affect” and thus was not considered as a separate variable. The discrepancies between the results of our study and the previous studies (Schmitt et al., 2010) could be caused by the different stimulus materials. We focused on a dominant and clearly religious symbol (crucifix), whereas Schmitt et al. studied the effects of a rather inclusive and subtle religious symbol (a Christmas tree). The Christmas tree has much more positive connotations than the crucifix’s body of Christ, which tells of suffering and eventual death. This might explain why the most pronounced effects of our study were observed on negative affect, whereas in Schmitt et al. the most pronounced effects were observed on positive affective states. On the other hand, the results of the two lines of research have much in common e all observed effects were moderated by participants’ religious identification. Thus, we gathered additional evidence that exposure to Christian religious symbols has a positive impact on religious Christians, while not on the non-religious and atheists. Finally, we found additional support for Mazumdar and Mazumdar’s (2009) theses about the sacralization of life spaces by religious people. The religiously neutral space of a public university elicited negative affective states in very religious students. The presence of a religious symbol in a room could have created a sense of emotional connectedness (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2009) that resulted in less negative affective states. As there were no effects on self-esteem measures, one might expect other mediating mechanisms e such as reduced stress, which is known to play an important role in negative affective states (Watson et al., 1988). This interpretation should be tested in additional studies with statistical mediational models. One important caveat of the study is related to the highly religiously homogenous environment characteristic of Poland. In more varied circumstances the outcome of the experiment might have included different reactions to the RC symbol in subjects professing another religion. Another limitation of the study is the fact that the study subjects were predominantly female students. Inclusion of more male subjects would provide a broader sample basis, especially if more individuals detached from religion were also included. Although the experiment had limitations because of the culturespecific nature of the symbol, the symbol itself is present in public spaces to such an extent that it is impossible to replace it with something else in experimental designs, if the ecological validity of the study is to be maintained. Generating a positive influence on believers, possibly by activating thoughts about their religious values and social identity, the cross could also negatively affect non-believers and their feelings. 7. Policy implications Policy regarding the display of religious symbols in public space1 varies from state to state in current European countries e ranging from prohibition of any symbols in public schools in France to the full acceptance of religious symbols in Parliament in other countries (e.g. Poland; Gruber, 2010). Similar issues are also widely discussed in the USA. In 2011, hundreds of residents of Whitefish, Montana, protested in order to keep the figure of Jesus Christ on the federal land of one of their national forests e even though the statue was perceived as a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by other inhabitants (Frosch, 2011). This issue e
1 We define public space as a social space open and accessible to all people e the “common ground where people carry out the functional and ritual activities that bind a community, whether in the normal routines of daily life or in periodic festivities” (Carr, Francis, Rivlin, & Stone, 1992, p. xi).
like several similar ones (related to displays of the Ten Commandments or crosses) e ended up before the Supreme Court of the United States. Such disagreements become most intense in the case of public education. Vibrant debates about religious symbols have taken place in the United States (presence of a cross at Texas A&M University campus; Ludwig, 2011), Poland (students’ protest against a cross in public high school in Wroclaw; Har1ukowicz, 2009) and Italy (the case of the school crucifix in Abano Therme ended at the European Court of Human Rights; ECHR, 2011). The question of the presence of religious symbols in public schools creates a tension between the secular, non-sectarian character of the public sphere and the basic freedoms of thought, conscience and religion that form the basis of modern democracies. These crucial aspects of the debate about religious symbols in schools are well covered in contemporary legal literature (e.g. Rorive, 2009; Troper, 2009). What seems to be missing in the debate about crosses in the public sphere is an assessment of the psychological consequences that these symbols might have for religious and non-religious students. The main aim of our article was to deliver some empirical knowledge about how religious symbols affect people’s psychological well-being in a relatively neutral, experimental situation. Although this first exploration was not intended to inform policies, we believe that further studies of these issues in real-life contexts could have substantial influence on legal and political decisions. The growing secularization of Western societies, including Polish society, means that further research will be valuable, as its results could be applied in public debate. Acknowledgment This work was funded by a Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) FOCUS grant and Public Research Funding (BST) to the first author. We would like to thank Manana Jaworska and Mateusz Olechowski for their substantial help in conducting this study, as well as to Marcin Ste˛ pniak for his help in data collection. We are grateful to Jasia Pietrzak for her comments to the first version of this manuscript. References Brzozowski, P. (2010). Skala Uczuc Pozytywnych i Negatywnych SUPIN. Polska adaptacja skali PANAS Davida Watsona i Lee Anny Clark. Podre˛ cznik [Positive and negative affect scale SUPIN: Polish adaptation of David Watson and Lee Ann Clark PANAS scale manual]. Warsaw: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045e1060. Cooper Marcus, C. (1992). Environmental memories. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 87e112). New York, NY: Plenum. Crocker, J., Niiya, Y., & Mischkowski, D. (2008). Why does writing about important values reduce defensiveness? Self-affirmation and the role of positive otherdirected feelings. Psychological Science, 17, 740e747. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ECHR. (2011). Grand chamber. Case of Lautsi and others v. Italy. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights. Frosch, D. (2011). Legal battle ignites over Jesus statue in Montana. The New York Times. November 24. Retrieved from. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/ in-montana-jesus-statue-is-focus-of-legal-battle.html. Galindo, M. P. G., & Rodriguez, J. A. C. (2000). Environmental aesthetics and psychological well-being: Relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain, 4(1), 13e27. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Gruber, R. E. (2010). In a changing Europe, debate about state crosses. JTA. February 11 Retrieved from. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/02/11/1010598/in-achanging-europe-debate-about-state-crosses.
M. Bilewicz, J. Klebaniuk / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 10e17 Har1ukowicz, J. (2009). Młodzi nie chca˛ krzyz_ a, liceum zrobi sale˛ do religii [Young people do not want the crucifix; high school prepare separate class for religious education]. Gazeta Wyborcza. December 2. http://wroclaw.gazeta.pl/wroclaw/1, 35771, 7320659, Mlodzi_nie_chca_krzyza__liceum_zrobi_sale_do_religii.html#ixzz1uUOtnFtV. Haslam, S. A., Ellemers, N., Reicher, S. D., Reynolds, K. J., & Schmitt, M. T. (2010). The social identity perspective tomorrow: Opportunities and avenues for advance. In T. Postmes, & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Rediscovering social identity: Core sources (pp. 357e379). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469e1479. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2011). The affective quality of human-natural environment relationships. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 451e469. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem, and social identity. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory. Constructive and critical advances (pp. 44e70). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Homel, R., & Burns, A. (1989). Environmental quality and the wellbeing of children. Social Indicators Research, 21, 133e158. Hummon, D. M. (1989). House, home and identity in contemporary American culture. In S. M. Low, & E. Chambers (Eds.), Housing culture and design: A comparative perspective (pp. 207e228). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57e93. Kahlmeyer, S., Schindler, C., Grize, L., & Braun-Fahrländer, C. (2001). Perceived environmental housing quality and wellbeing of movers. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 55(10), 708e715. Knapp, M. L. (1980). Essentials of nonverbal communication. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Kobielus, S. (2000). Krzyz_ Chrystusa. Od znaku i figury do symbolu i metafor [Christ’s cross: From sign and figure to symbol and metaphor]. Tyniec: Wydawnictwo Benedyktynów. Ludwig, M. (2011). Crosses on tower stir complaint at A&M-S.A. San Antonio Express. November 3. Retrieved from. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/ article/Crosses-stir-complaint-at-A-M-2247007.php. Mazumdar, S. (2000). Autocratic control and urban design: The case of Tehran, Iran. Journal of Urban Design, 5, 317e338. Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (1993). Sacred space and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 231e242. Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2001). Rethinking public and private space: Religion and women in Muslim society. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 18(4), 302e324. Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2004). Religion and place attachment: A study of sacred places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 385e397.
17
Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2009). Religion, immigration, and home making in diaspora: Hindu space in Southern California. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 256e266. Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1981). Interior office design and visitor response: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 646e650. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879e885. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437e448. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57e83. Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion. Ribak-Rosenthal, N., & Russell, T. T. (1994). Dealing with religious differences in December: A school counselor’s role. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 28, 295e301. Rorive, I. (2009). Religious symbols in the public space: In search of a European answer. Cardozo Law Review, 30, 2669e2714. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rowles, G. (1983). Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 299e313. Ruesch, J., & Kees, W. (1966). Nonverbal communication: Notes on the visual perception of human relations. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Schmitt, M. T., Davies, K., Hung, M., & Wright, S. C. (2010). Identity moderates the effects of Christmas display on mood, self-esteem and inclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1017e1022. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61e76). London: Academic Press. Troper, M. (2009). Sovereignty and laïcité. Cardozo Law Review, 30, 2561e2575. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063e1070. Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1976). Personal space in the faculty office: Desk placement and the student-faculty interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 529e532. qaguna, M., Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K., & Dzwonkowska, I. (2007). Skala Samooceny SES Morrisa Rosenberga e polska adaptacja metody [Morris Rosenberg selfesteem scale: Polish adaptation]. Psychologia Społeczna, 2, 164e176.