Atheists as “other”: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society
Abstract
Despite the declining salience of divisions among religious groups, the boundary between believers and nonbelievers in America remains strong. This article examines the limits of Americans' acceptance of atheists. Using new national survey data, it shows atheists are less likely to be accepted, publicly and privately, than any others from a long list of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups. This distrust of atheists is driven by religious predictors, social location, and broader value orientations. It is rooted in moral and symbolic, rather than ethnic or material, grounds. We demonstrate that increasing acceptance of religious diversity does not extend to the nonreligious, and present a theoretical framework for understanding the role of religious belief in providing a moral basis for cultural membership and solidarity in an otherwise highly diverse society.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Anti-atheist prejudice affects employment, elections, family life, and broader social inclusion.
“Anti-atheist prejudice-a growing concern in increasingly secular societies 14 -affects employment, elections, family life, and broader social inclusion 12,13 .”
From Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists (2017) · cites this paper as [12]
Aspects of religion may promote or exacerbate conflict with those outside a given religious group, including regional violence, intergroup conflict, and tacit prejudice against nonbelievers.
“Moreover, aspects of religion may promote or exacerbate conflict with those outside a given religious group, promoting regional violence 10 , intergroup conflict 11 , as well as tacit prejudice against nonbelievers 12,13 .”
From Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists (2017) · cites this paper as [12]
Atheists form the social group that Americans believe to be least in agreement with their vision of America.
“In fact, atheists form the social group that Americans believe to be least in agreement with their vision of America [1].”
From The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
There is a widespread cross-cultural stereotype that atheists are untrustworthy and lack a moral compass.
“There is a widespread cross-cultural stereotype suggesting that atheists are untrustworthy and lack a moral compass.”
From The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Homosexuals may be perceived as a threat to traditional moral values about marriage and sex, whereas atheists may be perceived as a threat to the religious moral community more generally.
“For example, homosexuals may be perceived as a threat to traditional moral values about marriage and sex [26], whereas atheists may be perceived as a threat to the religious moral community more generally [1, 7].”
From The amoral atheist? A cross-national examination of cultural, motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, and their implications for morality (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The origin and evolution of religious prosociality
Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1158757 · Cited by 874 · see citing works
The origins of religious disbelief
Norenzayan, A., & Gervais, W. M. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.006 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists
Gervais, W. M., Xygalatas, D., McKay, R. T., van Elk, M., Buchtel, E. E., Aveyard, M., Schiavone, S. R., Dar-Nimrod, I., Svedholm-Häkkinen, A. M., Riekki, T., et al. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0151 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Zuckerman, P. (2009) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Bloom, P. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100334 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.865000 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Everything Is Permitted? People Intuitively Judge Immorality as Representative of Atheists
Gervais, W. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092302 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
In Godlessness We Distrust: Using Social Psychology to Solve the Puzzle of Anti‐atheist Prejudice
Gervais, W. M. (2013) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12035 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Extending Religion-Health Research to Secular Minorities: Issues and Concerns
Hwang, K., Hammer, J. H., & Cragun, R. T. (2011) · Journal of Religion and Health · doi:10.1007/s10943-009-9296-0 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Effervescence and solidarity in religious organizations
Draper, S. (2014) · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · doi:10.1111/jssr.12109 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“It’s hard out here if You’re a Black Felon”: A critical examination of black male reentry
Williams, J. M., Wilson, S. K., & Bergeson, C. (2019) · The Prison Journal · doi:10.1177/0032885519852088 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Ståhl, T. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246593 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“Improvements in attitudes toward atheists, however, appear to be lagging behind [1].”
BackgroundGood for God? Religious motivation reduces perceived responsibility for and morality of good deeds.
Gervais, W. M. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0036678 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Atheism, Social Networks and Health: A Review and Theoretical Model
McCaffree, K. (2019) · Secularism and Nonreligion · doi:10.5334/snr.101 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Edgell, Penny
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 211-234
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2002493308
- Cited by
- 914
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 137 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 48
- FWCI
- 58.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
- Social Sciences › Law › Religious Freedom and Discrimination
- Keywords
- atheists, non-believers, religious otherness, social acceptance, moral boundaries, cultural membership, religious diversity, religious beliefs, social solidarity, value orientations, social location, American society
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review