terms, and particularly that being both religious and low in exclusivity is possible. What is possible and what is likely nevertheless differ. Even within this sample, the religious measures were positively correlated with authoritarianism measures, .16 < < .41, ps < rs .05, and with exclusivity, .28 < < .31, < .001. rs ps For the dependent measures, the six support-for-oppression items and the four support-for-militarization items both showed adequate or near-adequate internal reliability, = .79 and = .62. The 10 items together formed a more reliable index, = .82. Exploratory factor analyses using principle axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation suggested that support for oppression and support for militarization did not form distinguishable factors. The most coherent presentation of the items was a principle components analysis extracting one component. All 10 items (after reversing con-trait items) loaded > .42 on that component, which explained 39.4% of the variance. We thus averaged all items to form an index of support for oppression-militarization. The oppression-militarization index was positively correlated with items adapted from a validated scale of political intolerance (Sullivan, Pierson & Marcus, 1982), regardless of whether the intolerance items were framed as intolerance for people with values similar to participants, = .52, < .001, or intolerance for people classed as r(153) p of participants’ values, = .49, < .001. Overall sample averages for “enemies” r(153) p intolerance of similar others and intolerance of enemies were both well below the scale midpoint of 5, = 2.83, = 1.42 and = 3.66, = 1.51, respectively. M SD M SD Experimental analysis. We performed a preliminary one-way ANOVA to identify whether there was an overall difference between the religiosity first, control and authoritarianism first conditions with regard to the dependent variable: support for
terms, and particularly that being both religious and low in exclusivity is possible. What is possible and what is likely nevertheless differ. Even within this sample, the religious measures were positively correlated with authoritarianism measures, .16 < rs < .41, ps < .05, and with exclusivity, .28 < rs < .31, ps < .001. For the dependent measures, the six support-for-oppression items and the four support-for-militarization items both showed adequate or near-adequate internal reliability, = .79 and = .62. The 10 items together formed a more reliable index, = .82. Exploratory factor analyses using principle axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation suggested that support for oppression and support for militarization did not form distinguishable factors. The most coherent presentation of the items was a principle components analysis extracting one component. All 10 items (after reversing con-trait items) loaded > .42 on that component, which explained 39.4% of the variance. We thus averaged all items to form an index of support for oppression-militarization. The oppression-militarization index was positively correlated with items adapted from a validated scale of political intolerance (Sullivan, Pierson & Marcus, 1982), regardless of whether the intolerance items were framed as intolerance for people with values similar to participants, r(153) = .52, p < .001, or intolerance for people classed as “enemies” of participants’ values, r(153) = .49, p < .001. Overall sample averages for intolerance of similar others and intolerance of enemies were both well below the scale midpoint of 5, M = 2.83, SD = 1.42 and M = 3.66, SD = 1.51, respectively. Experimental analysis. We performed a preliminary one-way ANOVA to identify whether there was an overall difference between the religiosity first, control and authoritarianism first conditions with regard to the dependent variable: support for
religionoppression_rbb_mainmanuscript_revisedagainfinal-1.docx