Religiously-based prejudice and self-censorship: perceptions and experiences among Christian therapists and educators.

Rosik, Christopher H. ; Teraoka, Nicole K. ; Moretto, James D. 等

To what extent might religiously-based discrimination be a problem within the mental health professions? In recent years religious discrimination has gained increasing attention as an important focus of psychological study, but usually as regards discrimination committed by religious conservatives. However, recent studies suggest that as Judeo-Christian influence wanes and secularism becomes more culturally dominant in North America (Twenge, Exline, Grubbs, Sastry, & Campbell, 2015), Christians may increasingly be the targets of religious prejudice (Hodge, 2009; Hyers & Hyers, 2008). As Hyers and Hyers emphasized, religiously discriminated targets may not experience discrimination that is distinctive or malicious but may qualify as microaggressive (Sue et al., 2007): derogation, teasing, stereotyping, hostility, false assumptions, and exclusion. Though there is great diversity among Christians, many stereotypes involving the Christian faith may be derived from media portrayals of its more distinctive subcultures, such as evangelicals and fundamentalists. Fundamentalists, especially, are likely to be stereotyped as culturally backwards and conservative, making them the most likely candidates to be seen as the cultural out-group (Bolce & De Maio, 1999; Yancey, 2010). It may be that many Americans believe they know enough about Christian conservatives and fundamentalists, perhaps stereotypically so, to feel very antagonistic toward them as a group (Bolce & De Maio, 2008).

Since the birth of psychology as an area of study, the field has frequently viewed religion with suspicion, especially when addressing religious beliefs and experiences in counseling and education (Cremins, 2002; Ellis, 1983, 1988; Freud, 1927; Ragan, Malony, & Beit-Hallahmi, 1980; Sevensky, 1984). Religious faith has often been understood within a reductionistic psychological and evolutionary perspective, and expressions of devout faith may be viewed as markers of mental illnesses and distress, which may lead to one-sided portrayals of faith communities (Sevensky, 1984). Recently, Delaney, Miller, and Bisono (2013) surveyed psychologists from several divisions of the American Psychological Association (APA) and found that, relative to the general population, psychologists were more than twice as likely to claim no religion, three times more likely to describe religion as unimportant in their lives, and five times more likely to deny belief in God. These researchers also reported the relatively frequent experience among their sample of psychologists of having lost belief in God and disaffiliating from institutional religion. These findings are consistent with other research in this area and suggest that psychologists in particular are more likely to identify with a broad sense of spirituality than with the beliefs and practices of an institutionalized Judeo-Christian faith community (Bergin & Jensen, 1990; Rosmarin, Green, Pirutinsky, & McKay, 2013).

Although literature suggests that Christian scholars in academic settings are far less likely to be traditionally religious than Christians in the general public (Hodge, 2006; Klein & Stern, 2009; Thalheimer, 1973; Tobin & Weinberg, 2007; Yancey, 2012), the situation within academic psychology may be similarly unfriendly to Christian viewpoints. Redding (2012) reported that the ratio of liberals to conservatives within academia has increased from 3 to 1 to roughly 10 to 1 today and 20 to 1 or more in some disciplines. Data collected by Tobin and Weinberg (2007) found that although approximately 80% of the public identifies with some form of Christianity, only about 56% of college faculty identify themselves as being even nominally Christian. This research also suggested that college faculty feel warmly toward most religious groups but feel most unfavorably to evangelical Christians. From these statistics, the data seem to indicate that the potential for bias against conservative religion may reside in the fact that there are significantly fewer self-identified Christians in academia than in the public at large (Yancey, 2012). Addressing concerns about religious bias, some research suggests that it does transpire, but is a relatively rare occurrence (Rosik & Smith, 2009; Yancey, 2012). Yancey observes that although academics tend to be of an upper-middle class status and may accept some politically conservative ideas, they are more likely to favor progressivism and thus seem more hostile toward people of a conservative religious background.

Given these statistics, people who identify as evangelical Christians may report more religious bias in academia than Christians of a more liberal or mainline denomination (Hodge, 2006). A significant percentage of academics admit that they would be less inclined to hire a conservative or person of religious faith for a position in academia (Inbar & Lammers, 2012). With this potential academic bias toward those who are moderately to devoutly religious and conservative (Marsden, 2015), there is a realistic possibility of self-censorship among non-tenured conservative Christian educators. Although there is considerable freedom in teaching in higher education, there may be undefined limits as to how much "religiosity" professors may safely integrate into their work lest they overstep that boundary (Thalheimer, 1973). Some professors might actively practice "soft censorship," or a type of self-censorship that is not generally conscious (Hodge, 2009). This "censorship" may serve to help protect non-tenured professors' jobs and their eligibility for academic achievement should the secular bias prove to be a real factor in their careers (Rothman, Nevitte, & Lichter, 2005).

Apart from the legitimate concern with religiously-based bias toward conservative Christians, the study of potential discrimination against and prejudice toward conservative groups may serve to illuminate a blind spot within the field of psychology. Researchers in a predominantly liberal discipline focus on issues central to a liberal moral value system, such as poverty and minority rights, and this may obscure psychology's ability to detect and understand discrimination committed by those who profess liberal ideologies (Duarte et al., 2015; Wetherell, Brandt, & Reyna, 2013). This would be very much in keeping with Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), which seeks to identify and explain the psychological mechanisms underlying how individuals and the cultures they inhabit intuitively construct their moral frameworks in an effort to balance the needs of individuals and groups (Graham et al., 2011; Haidt, 2012; Koleva, Graham, Iyer, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012).

According to MFT, self-identified liberals have a moral compass dominated by concerns with harm, equality of outcome, and restrictions on liberty wherein moral rules are largely justified in terms of their consequences for individuals. By contrast, self-identified conservatives acknowledge these concerns but additionally tend to place a greater emphasis on moral intuitions that enhance group (e.g., family, church, country, society) functioning and which undergird social cohesion, social stability via institutional integrity, and self-control via the sacred (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009; Rosik, Dinges, & Saavedra, 2013). These group-related moral intuitions may not be recognized by liberals as being moral and may even be seen as immoral when they are perceived to infringe negatively upon individuals (Haidt & Graham, 2007), and liberal ideologies may thus have difficulty identifying non-derogatory motivational attributions for conservative viewpoints.

MFT has described this difference in moral intuitions between liberals and conservatives as essentially a difference between two distinct cultures (Talheim et al., 2015), and thus a matter of genuine cultural diversity that may be overlooked within contemporary psychology. For example, by only examining the biases of conservatives, psychologists may fail to fully explore discrimination and prejudice in America (Brandt, Reyna, Chambers, Crawford, & Wetherell, 2014; Tetlock, 2012). In fact, past prejudice research may have confounded the target group's race or minority status with its stance on core conservative and liberal values (Chambers, Schlenker, & Collisson, 2012). Liberals appear to dislike individuals and groups that seek to perpetuate the status quo as much as conservatives dislike persons and groups that desire to change it; however, groups preferred by conservatives but not liberals (e.g., traditional Christians, tea party members, NRA supporters) are very rarely selected as targets in prejudice research.

The purpose of this study is therefore to obtain initial information regarding the prevalence of perceived prejudice and self-censorship among Christian-identified therapists and academicians. In order to provide somewhat of a contextual check on our findings, we compare perceived religiously-based prejudice and self-censorship among participants with reference to both secular and Christian colleagues. Although our study is primarily exploratory in nature, we make the following predictions based on our literature review: Perceived religiously-based prejudice and self-censorship would be (1) greatest among the more conservative Christian professionals, (2) greater with the reference group of secular colleagues compared to Christian colleagues, and, in keeping with Yancey's (2012) prediction, (3) greater for early career Christian academicians as compared to those later in their careers.

The Survey

Procedure

In the spring of 2013, the membership of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS) was surveyed about their experiences of religiously-based prejudice and self-censorship. CAPS is a non-profit, member-supported organization founded in 1956 consisting of mostly mental health professionals (cf. http://caps.net/). CAPS describes itself as seeking to encourage the understanding of the relationship between Christianity and the behavioral sciences at both the clinical/counseling and the theoretical/research levels as well as promoting fellowship among Christians in the psychological and related professions. As a condition of membership, CAPS' approximately 2000 members in North America agree to a succinct statement of faith that espouses traditional Trinitarian Christian theology. Approval to conduct the membership survey was obtained both from the CAPS Executive Director and the institutional review board of the authors' university. Following a pre-notification e-mail by the Executive Director encouraging participation, CAPS members were sent an e-mail from the first author inviting participation and providing a link to the survey, which was conducted securely online through SurveyMonkey. A follow-up invitation was sent a few weeks later. Participants who completed the survey became eligible to win a $100 Amazon.com gift certificate.

Recruitment of Potential Participants

Of the 1,293 CAPS members available to be contacted by e-mail, 345 completed the survey. Two participants appeared to exit the survey early and not return. These participants were therefore deleted, yielding 343 valid surveys, for a response rate of 26.5%. The survey was completed by 175 women (51%) and 312 white (91%) participants. Average age of participants was 48.1 years (SD = 13.8). Participants' primary occupations included psychologist (23.6%), professional counsellor (22.4%), educator (20.4%), student (13.7%), marriage and family therapist (7%), and pastoral counselor (4.7%). The average length of time participants had worked in their primary field was 14.4 years (SD = 12.2). Doctoral level degrees in psychology were reported by 147 (42.9%) participants. Participants were on average very active in attending worship services (M = 1.86, SD = .7, where 2 signified once per week) and reported high degrees of intrinsic religious orientation (M = 1.38, SD = .85, where 1 indicated strong agreement with the statement, "My whole approach to life is based on my religiorf), an empirically established single-item measure of intrinsic religiousness (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). In terms of religious affiliation, 237 (69 1%) participants described themselves as evangelical Protestant, 61 (17.8%) selfidentified as mainline Protestant, and 45 (13.2%) self-identified as something other than evangelical or mainline Protestant.

Survey Instrument

We asked participants to indicate their age, gender, and SES (using a proxy of highest educational level of one parent, with the eight options ranging from 1 = below 12h grade to 8 = completed graduate/professional school). In addition to assessing demographic, vocational, and religious information, we developed a series of 15 closed ended questions to assess participants' concerns about the field of psychology as well as their experiences of religiously-based disparagement and unfair or prejudicial treatment, assessing separately with reference to secular or Christian colleagues. The specific items are presented in Tables 1-3. Questions regarding future concerns about the climate of professional psychology were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale (with response endpoints being 1 = strongly agree and 7 = strongly disagree), as were the questions on participants' engagement in self-censorship. Questions about frequency of experiences of disparagement or concerns with and experiences of unfair or prejudicial treatment were responded to using a 5-point scale (1 = very often, 5 = never). Two questions asking participants how many Christian colleagues they knew who have engaged in religiously-based self-censorship provided four responses options, ranging from 1 = none to 4 = two or more. Finally, two open-ended questions designed to solicit participants' personal accounts of unfair or prejudicial treatment and reasons for engaging in self-censorship concluded the survey. All statistics and statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21.0.

Results

Practice Concerns

Three survey questions dealt with participants' general concerns about the professional practice of psychology. Table 1 displays these results. Fifty-five percent of the sample expressed slight to strong concerns that restrictions will be placed on their ability to apply their faith to their work, with 42.2% of participants expressing moderate to strong concerns. Similarly, 60.4% of participants anticipated that it will be more difficult in the future to be a Christian in professional psychology, with over half (50.5%) of the sample moderately to strongly expecting this outcome. In examining the extent to which participants have over the years felt a need to be more careful mentioning their faith, 391% of participants reported agreement with this statement, though the majority expressed some disagreement.

Several participants specified concerns about what the future of psychology might hold for Christian therapists. The perspectives of five participants are provided below:

   At some point, Christian and psychologist
   are going to become antithetical;
   in fact, given the statements
   made by APA, this might already be
   the case. In the future, I imagine that
   I will either resign from the profession
   or just retire and not practice
   any more because of the risk of
   going against APA policy.

   The profession seems to be moving
   in a direction that is incompatible
   with the way most Americans live or
   want to live their lives and the profession's
   helpfulness and relevance is
   reduced as a result; we are becoming
   out of touch.

   When I was on APA Council I sometimes
   found that being a Christian
   was a conversation stopper. People
   that I was having pleasant conversations
   with would abruptly stop the
   conversation after discovering that I
   identify as a Christian.

   Although religious values are supported
   in words, I have found them
   not accepted in reality by colleagues
   and/or licensing boards. I fear having
   to accept gay marriages and provide
   marriage counselling to them or
   lose my license or get sued.

   Given our current cultural and political
   climate, I am concerned that there
   could be disastrous consequences for
   mental health and psychology programs
   at Christian colleges and universities
   regarding our position on
   homosexuality. My concern is that
   this position may lead to difficulties
   with accrediting organizations.

Unfair or Prejudicial Treatment and Disparagement

Table 2 provides the percentage of participants who reported concern about religiously-based unfair or prejudicial treatment and indicated having experienced faith related disparagement from secular and Christian colleagues. Strikingly, 63.6% of participants reported at least some concern about receiving religiously-based unfair or prejudicial treatment from secular colleagues. Receiving such treatment from Christian colleagues was a less frequent but by no means insignificant issue among our sample, with 34.5% reporting at least some concern.

Reports of perceived religiously-based unfair treatment among participants appeared to be somewhat less frequent but still of note. With reference to secular colleagues, 37.4% of participants reported at least occasional unfair treatment, and this number jumped to 799% if those who reported such treatment as occurring rarely are included. Comparative percentages with reference to Christian colleagues were 28.3% and 79.5%, respectively, indicating that this problem clearly exists within the Christian-identified professional community as well. Finally, experiences of having heard religiously-based disparaging remarks about Christian therapists or educators were a nearly universal phenomenon. Having heard secular colleagues make such remarks at least occasionally was reported by 70.5% of participants, a figure which rose to 95.6% when those who rarely experienced such remarks were included. With reference to Christian colleagues, such remarks were reported at least occasionally by 42.8% of the sample and at least rarely by 83.7% of participants.

Examples participants gave of disparaging comments or unfair and prejudicial treatment included the following:

   The director of a community health
   agency I had worked with for about
   six months (at that time) told my
   immediate supervisor and myself one
   evening that he liked having Christians
   working under him, 'Because
   you can do anything you want to
   them, and they can't do anything
   back to you.'

   The Peace Corp has a referral list for
   members to come back to Washington
   D.C. for any mental health issues
   and to obtain an abortion. I was on

   that list and saw several members
   who had been sent here to obtain
   an abortion. After I noticed that I
   wasn't getting any more referrals, I
   called and inquired about this. I
   was told, 'You ask questions that are
   too hard.' Apparently my effort to
   help the member think through her
   decision quite thoroughly was seen
   as troublesome.

   Particularly at conferences, there is
   an assumption (APA in particular, but
   also APS) that almost no one in the
   room is evangelical. When the usual
   demeaning comments are made,
   when I speak up and note the condescension
   towards people of faith in
   general, but towards evangelicals in
   particular, the chill in the room is palpable.
   There is a smug ignorance of
   theology and church history, coupled
   with dismissive condescension, in
   APA especially.

Some participants also experienced significant disparagement or unfair treatment within Christian contexts, as illustrated in comments such as these:

   It is unfortunate that the Christian
   professional environment is more
   bigoted than the secular environment.
   There appear to be unspoken
   and spoken parameters in the Christian
   professional organization setting
   of what one can or cannot say.

   I am ashamed as a Christian to actually
   have to admit that the worst
   behaviour toward me with regard to
   my professional practice has come
   from other Christians who made it
   clear that my position on a particular
   topic led them to question my a)
   faith and b) professional judgment.
   I've found my secular colleagues to
   be rather more accepting and flexible
   than my Christian colleagues.

Experiences of Self-Censorship

Table 3 presents the findings related to experiences of self-censorship. Nearly half (46.1%) of participants reported at least some agreement with having chosen not to speak, write, or research a topic due to potential negative professional consequences from secular colleagues. Somewhat fewer participants (38.7%), reported such concerns with reference to Christian colleagues. The findings further indicate that 47.2% of participants know one or more colleagues who have engaged in such self-censorship with reference to secular colleagues as well as 42% knowing one or more colleagues self-censoring in reference to Christian colleagues. Finally, with regards to specific issues that have generated self-censorship among participants, 208 (60.6%) acknowledged they had engaged in self-censorship among secular colleagues for one or more topics. The most frequently cited subjects were homosexuality (46.1%), moral issues (29.4%), and Christian spirituality/faith (26.8%). With reference to Christian colleagues, 189 (55.1%) participants reported having engaged in self-censorship. The most frequently cited topics were homosexuality (35.6%), political issues (21.9%), and theological issues (16.9%).

Some examples of participants' reports of self-censorship in reference to secular as well as Christian colleagues included the following:

   I spent 23 years as a counselor educator
   at a public university. The environment
   clearly marginalized those of
   the conservative Christian faith. I had
   the respect of faculty who were not
   Christians, but it was clear they were
   free to express their view on various
   issues with no fear of criticism or
   other repercussions, but I was not. I
   constantly feared saying something in
   class that would put me on the front
   page of the campus newspaper. I
   was clearly marginalized and experienced
   what Dareld Sue would call
   microaggressions.

   There are times when I am hesitant
   to speak or write about certain topics
   (such as divorce for example),
   especially to a very conservative
   Christian audience. So far, my experience
   as been that my secular colleagues
   are more understanding of
   divergent viewpoints than my Christian
   colleagues.

   Homosexuality is a black and white
   issue for many of my colleagues.
   Anything other than unabashed support
   for homosexuals is taken to
   mean someone is beyond the pale.
   Any other virtues are swallowed up
   by that response. One cannot think
   highly of a colleague who has the
   wrong view on that topic. It's a litmus
   test for acceptability as a scholar
   and human being.

Predictions

Univariate analyses indicated that most of our variables met the criteria for normality and linearity. Significant skew was detected for Years Worked, Intrinsic Religiousness, and Church Attendance and was sufficiently corrected using square root, inverse, and logarithmic transformations, respectively. Missing data were excluded on a per analysis basis, leading to slightly different degrees of freedom for some of the statistics. Due to our analyses involving multiple comparisons and correlations, we set alpha levels at a conservative p < .001 to minimize the probability of findings being a product of chance.

We found at least partial support for two of our three predictions. Utilizing the distinction between participants who indicated an evangelical (n = 237) versus mainline (n = 61) religious affiliation as a proxy for Christian conservatism, we found that evangelicals (M = 3.55, SD = 2.34) were more concerned than mainline affiliated individuals (M = 4.70, SD = 2.24) about restrictions being placed on their ability to apply their faith to their work, t(298) = 3.47, p < .001, d = .50. Evangelicals (M = 3.08, SD = 2.11) more than mainline participants (M = 4.16, SD = 2.25) also reported a greater anticipation that it will be more difficult in the future to be a Christian in their profession, t(298) = 3.54, p < .001, d = .50. Support for this prediction was also found in the bivariate correlation between intrinsic religiousness and perceptions of unfair treatment from secular colleagues, r(342) = .19, p < .001, as well as similar trends regarding the relationship of intrinsic religiousness with anticipation of it being more difficult to be a Christian in psychology, r(342) = .16, p < .003, and with concerns about being treated unfairly by secular colleagues, r(342) = .16, p < .003. While these results were in keeping with our first predictions, we did not find similar differences or associations for any of the other variables assessing perceptions of religiously-based prejudice, disparagement, or self-censorship.

In keeping with our second prediction, we did discover perceptions of religiously-based prejudice and engagement in self-censorship to be greater when the reference group was secular colleagues as compared to Christian colleagues. This was the case for concerns about unfair treatment from secular (M = 3.34, SD = 1.97) versus Christian (M = 4.76, SD = 1.95) colleagues, t(686) = 12.91, p < .001, d = .72; perceptions of disparagement (M = 3.04, SD = .91 versus M = 3.60, SD = .96), t(685) = 7.00, p < .001, d = .60; perceptions of being treated unfairly (M = 3.79, SD = .87 versus M = 4.12, SD = .92), t (686) = 4.13, p < .001, d = .37; reports of self-censorship (M = 4.12, SD = 1.99 versus M = 4.54, SD =1.97), t(676) = 3.82, p < .001, d = .21; and reports of knowing other Christian colleagues who have engaged in self-censorship (M = 1.96, SD = 1.14 versus M = 1.76, SD = 1.03), t(368) = 2.5, p < .001, d = .18.

To assess our third prediction, we correlated years worked with the perceptions of religiouslybased prejudice, disparagement, and self-censorship among participants who indicated a primary academic career. This analysis did not find any significant inverse relationships, though there was one trend found in the opposite direction of our prediction, wherein the occurrence of reported self-censorship from Christian colleagues was positively related to years worked in academia, r (70) = .31, p < .009.

Summary and Implications

Our findings appear to raise some sobering questions for the mental health professions. Participants expressed significant angst about their future involvement in the field, with a majority anticipating that in the future they will experience restrictions and greater difficulty in honoring their faith in the context of their psychological practice. These statistics were likely influenced by the greater future concerns in this regard among participants who identified with an evangelical religious affiliation. In addition, nearly two of three participants also reported concerns about receiving religiously-based unfair or prejudicial treatment from secular colleagues. While religiously conservative participants felt the greatest concern about their future in professional psychology, intrinsic religiosity and religious affiliation did not for the most part differentiate between participants' actual experiences of unfair or prejudicial treatment, disparagement, and self-censorship in reference to secular colleagues.

The experience of hearing secular colleagues make disparaging remarks about Christian therapists and educators was an almost universal phenomenon among participants, with perceptions of religiously-based unfair or prejudicial treatment from such colleagues being reported by over three-quarters of the sample. Religiously-based self-censorship with reference to secular colleagues was reportedly engaged in by nearly half of participants. This percentage increased to 60% when participants were asked to identify specific subject matter for which they have chosen not to speak, write, or research about because of potential negative professional consequences from secular colleagues. In this regard, homosexuality was far and away the most frequently mentioned topic, cited by 76% of participants who reported any self-censoring. Nearly half of all participants also indicated they knew at least one Christian colleague who had self-censored from secular colleagues.

Although participants reported significant levels of religiously-based disparagement, unfair or prejudicial treatment, and self-censorship from secular colleagues, our findings also reveal that many described similar concerns and experiences with reference to Christian colleagues. This may partially reflect the fact that many CAPS members practice or teach within explicitly Christian contexts, though we did not assess specifically for vocational milieu and are therefore unable to determine comparative levels of experiencing religious-based prejudice or self-censorship between secular and religious settings. This would be a good starting point for further research in this area. Christian therapists and educators nevertheless do appear to be subject to prejudice, disparagement, and self-censorship from within their own professional faith community, a fact these professionals may need to attend to with the same degree of concern many seem to have about their treatment from secular colleagues. The fact of such religiously-based prejudice, disparagement, and self-censorship from within their own faith community, however, should not obscure the reality that similar experiences were reported at significantly higher levels with reference to secular colleagues, as we predicted. We did not find evidence for our third prediction, and thus were not able to confirm Yancey's (2012) theory of religiously-based bias within academia. This may reflect our smaller subsample of educators and consequent low power as well as a relatively small number of participant educators who reported working in secular universities. Taken as a whole, we believe our findings have at least three primary implications for the psychological professions.

The Need to Address Religiously-Based Prejudice

Our findings represent both a challenge and an opportunity for professional psychology. They are a challenge inasmuch as they reflect a troubling degree of concern and religiouslybased negative experiences by Christian-identified practicitioners with an average of 14 years in their profession. It is not hard to imagine how the psychological professions might respond were similar levels of such identity-based experiences being reported by racial or sexual minority groups within the mental health field. One could envision intensified research campaigns and high profile initiatives to understand and ameliorate what would no doubt be considered signs of an alarmingly unfriendly environment within psychology. As the cultural environment in the West continues to diverge from conservative religious values and understandings as regards, to cite just one prime example, the meaning and structure of marriage, psychology's claims to value diversity will likely face new and more public challenges (Rosik, 2014). Will the profession ignore the concerns and experiences of our study's participants and de facto marginalize them, or will it confront their concerns and engage these religiously devout professionals? Many of our participants may be wondering whether the field of psychology will still welcome them when they differ on values that the profession holds dear1. In other words, will the practical understanding of diversity become so defined by left-of-center values that these professionals will be increasingly judged as unfit to participate in their vocation? Whatever the end result, it seems likely that psychology's conceptualization of diversity is going to become more easily discernable in the near future.

With these challenges also comes opportunity. The mental health professions have an opportunity to respond in reassuring ways to religiously identified professionals who may experience an unfriendly vocational atmosphere. Several actions might promote such reassurance. First, the psychological disciplines can formally recognize that these concerns exist. For example, the APA could acknowledge that its leadership and political advocacy is decidedly left-of-center on the contentious social issues of the day and that this can create a sense of disenfranchisement on the part of many clinicians and educators who are religiously and/or socially conservative (cf., Duarte et al., 2015, for an excellent discussion of this and similar concerns). This acknowledgment can be followed up by efforts on the part of the APA to reach out to these individuals and engage them seriously, perhaps with an information gathering campaign that listens to their concerns and determines what formal and informal activities might best provide reassurance of their welcomed status. We believe the current study provides some clues for guiding this process. Where the values of the profession have evolved to the point where conflicts have arisen with religiously conservative therapists and educators, the APA could convene a task force that purposely includes members from all parties with a stake in the issue at hand. For example, we could envision a panel of religiously conservative and sexual minority psychologists being formed to flesh out how conscience exemptions might be ethically utilized among therapists who have a religiously-based inability to provide certain types of care for same-sex couples. This concern for both the religious values of some psychologists and the well-being of sexual minority clients would signal the APA's investment in a process that grapples effectively with ideological differences and their resultant value conflicts within psychology. In this way a more inclusive definition of diversity is advanced that avoids the promotion of a moral and values zero sum game within the profession. We suspect that such activities would reassure many of our study's participants of the APA's good will toward them, not to mention help stem the tide of the psychology's increasing loss of credibility among conservative segments of society (Gauchat, 2012).

The Need to Study Conservative Targets of Prejudice

If the reports of our participants are to be believed, prejudicial speech and behavior toward conservative populations exists within the psychological disciplines and may be a relatively understudied dimension of the prejudice literature. The impressions fostered by decades of research into prejudice and discrimination that contrasts the tolerance of left-of-center groups with the dangerous intolerance of the right may simply reflect psychologists' tendency to study prejudice with reference to groups of liberal concern (Chambers et al., 2012). As Redding (2013) observed, "The kind of science that gets conducted, how findings are interpreted and received, and the degree of critical scrutiny such studies receive is dependent upon scientists' socio-political views" (p. 439). For example, it is a common belief based on a significant body of research that prejudice is inversely related to education and socioeconomic status. However, such an axiomatic view of prejudice might not be sustainable were conservative targets more frequently examined. Our findings appear consistent with the underreported existence of a positive association between educational attainment and prejudice toward conservative religion (Bolce & De Maio, 1999: Yancey, 2010). While our study may be a starting point, we believe professional psychology is in great need of further research examining conservative targets of prejudice. This is necessary to ensure that our current understanding about the nature and direction of prejudice is in fact accurate and comprehensive rather than simply a reflection of restricted sociopolitical interests of psychologists.

The Need to Assess Within Group Prejudicial Experiences

Although our sample of mostly conservative Christian therapists and educators reported significantly more disparagement, prejudicial treatment, and self-censorship with reference to secular as opposed to Christian colleagues, we found participants experienced relatively high rates for many of these behaviors from professionals within their faith community. To our knowledge, ours is the first study in the prejudice literature that examined these experiences with reference to both in group and outgroup sources (see Mitchell, Davis, & Galupo, 2015, for a possible exception). Our findings thus highlight two important considerations. First, therapists and psychology educators identified with conservative religion should acknowledge the problems that appear to exist within their own faith community. Rather than a simple narrative of being subject to outgroup prejudice from secularist colleagues, conservative religious professionals in psychology may need to humbly acknowledge and address within group experiences of prejudice. This will likely increase the sense of integrity and seriousness attributed by those outside of their faith community to their concerns with prejudicial treatment from secular colleagues and professional psychology in general.

Second, we believe our findings highlight the importance of assessing within group experiences of prejudice in this literature. Examining experiences of perceived prejudice emanating from within as well as outside the reference group may provide a useful context for understanding the broader environment of prejudice and discrimination to which the target group is being subjected. We suspect accounting for experiences of prejudice derived from within group sources could provide some moderation and attenuation in established statistical relationships between health outcomes or minority stress among racial and sexual minorities as well as the conservatively religious. We thus strongly encourage prejudice researchers to consider assessing for such possibilities in their future work.

Limitations

Limitations of our study that have to be acknowledged include the self-report and retrospective nature of participants' experiences of disparagement, prejudicial treatment, and self-censorship. The relationship between these perceptions and actual prejudicial treatment cannot be assumed, although the employment of participant perceptions in the prejudice and discrimination literature is normative (Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014). We believe reports of self-censorship are less subject to this consideration. Furthermore, participants' accounts of such experiences, as seen in several of the verbatim statements we presented, lend credence to the objectivity of at least some of their accounts. The generalizability of our findings to other groups of religious or even Christian professionals in psychology similarly cannot be guaranteed. Participants in our study came from largely evangelical Protestant traditions, and additional research is needed to determine the extent to which our findings might reflect the experiences of therapists and educators from other faith communities such as Roman Catholicism or Islam.

It might be argued that self-censorship is not necessarily a negative phenomenon when engaged in to promote harmony in an ideologically diverse academic or professional environment. While the pragmatic utility of such concealment on occasion is unquestionable, environments that require ongoing monitoring of specific identities have been shown be associated with self-regulatory depletion in other groups (Critcher & Ferguson, 2014), and this finding could conceivably apply to conservative Christians within the mental health professions, although further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. Moreover, although it is possible some of our participants' reports of prejudice and disparagement were based on mere disagreement, we believe the responses to the open-ended questions suggest this is unlikely to be a broad-based explanatory factor. The use of such claims to dismiss the seriousness of our findings would represent an apparent double-standard, given that such explanations for perceived prejudice in this literature are rarely mentioned with non-conservative target groups.

In addition, there is the possibility of some conflation of theological and political ideologies in as much as these dimensions may not fully align along a left-right continuum, as is often the case with African-American Christians. However, our sample was largely Caucasian and affiliated with the evangelical Protestant tradition, characteristics known to be highly associated with conservative politics (Pelz, 2004; Steensland & Wright, 2014). Furthermore, mental health professionals and psychologists in particular are known to be far less conservatively religious than the general population and politically aligned with liberal beliefs (Delaney et al., 2013; Bilgrave & Deluty, 2002). Thus the risk of significant conflation appears to be minimal and not likely to have meaningfully altered the results. Interpretation of the findings would also have been aided by additional comparison groups, such as the frequency of perceived religiously-based disparagement or self-censorship by therapists in general. The absence of such a comparison group is not unusual within survey research that addresses new avenues of study (Johnson & Federman, 2014; Hansen et al. 2006; Riggs, Coleman, & Due, 2014) and in our opinion does not diminish the meaningfulness of the present results as potential markers of prejudicial experience, though future research should attempt to address this limitation. Finally, the response rate to our survey (26.5%) was low, albeit not usually so for an electronic survey (Nulty, 2008), and may signal some upward bias in our findings in that participants who believe they have experienced prejudice may have been more likely to respond. Yet even if this introduced some inflation to our findings, the relatively high rates of anticipated and perceived prejudicial treatment from secular colleagues leads us to believe that a higher level of response would not have consequentially altered the significance of our findings for the mental health field.

Conclusion

The relationship of conservatively religious professionals and the mental health professions to which they belong may be fraying. The recent Supreme Court decision finding same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right in America appears likely to accelerate this tension (Rosik, 2014). Strong majorities of our sample (often in excess of 60%) of devout Christian therapists and educators anticipate future difficulties, restrictions, and prejudicial treatment from secular colleagues due to their religious beliefs. At least some experiences of religiously-based verbal disparagement and unfair or prejudicial treatment from secular colleagues were reported by 95.6% and 79.4% of participants, respectively. Self-censorship of professional activities due to concern with negative professional impact from secular colleagues was a frequent though by no means universal phenomenon among participants. These rates were significantly higher in most instances than the occurrence of similar religiously-based prejudicial behaviour perceived to be originating from Christian colleagues, which nonetheless was surprisingly high. We hope our findings prompt necessary discussion within professional organizations such as the APA as well as among Christian professionals about how to preserve a diversity that remains tolerant of the social values that animate many conservatively religious professionals.

Christopher H. Rosik

Link Care Center & Fresno Pacific University

Nicole K. Teraoka James D. Moretto

Fresno Pacific University

Notes

(1) Worth noting in this regard are a reviewer's comments on an earlier version of this manuscript submitted to a religiously-identified APA journal:

   While conservative Christians may dislike
   having to self-censor their views of homosexuality,
   it is arguably justifiable because,
   at its core, it is clear that Christian doctrine
   is bigoted towards certain gay rights (i.e.,
   homophobic (for lack of a better term)).
   Evangelicals are more likely to experience
   tension because their ideals encourage
   them to be vocal about their faith, but just
   because evangelicals possess a homophobic
   cultural value does not mean the APA
   or the field should feel obligated to nurture
   such perspectives. Not all social values
   need to be nurtured or tolerated even if
   they are widely accepted by a social
   group. As such, I encourage the authors to
   either reconsider the wording of their
   assertion that the APA take action to
   improve the professional environment for
   evangelicals given that a large part of the
   issue, as this study evidenced, is that evangelicals'
   most frequent problem is that bigoted
   perspectives towards homosexuality
   are not being appreciated in today's professional
   environments.

These remarks would appear to give little solace to our participants, but rather reinforce the belief that orthodox Christian viewpoints on homosexual conduct are bigoted by definition and therefore can be summarily dismissed as a dimension of religious or ideological diversity by the scholarly and professional gatekeepers within the APA (see Rosik, 2014, for a detailed examination of this issue).

Similarly, reviewers for two different APA journals independently requested that we qualify our study by discussing "rampant" Christian privilege and the Christian history of discriminating against and oppressing others. This request for us to provide a mea culpa on behalf of Christianity is a curious one, however understandable it may be as a private opinion, for reviewers tasked with evaluating research according to scientific standards rather than social justice agendas. While many of these reviewer's other observations were valid and addressed in our current limitations section, this request raises further concerns about the potentially negative impact of a lack of ideological diversity within such scholarly apparatuses (Abramowitz, Gomes, & Abramowitz, 1975; Ceci, Peters, & Plotkin, 1985; Duarte et al., 2015). Although we certainly acknowledge the reality of instances of unacceptable treatment of out-group members by individuals and institutions down through Christian history, adequate treatment of this topic could easily constitute an entirely new paper and would need to include reference to scholarly resources that provide a full historical context (e.g., Stark, 2004, 2014).

References

Abramowitz, S. I., Gomes, B., & Abramowitz, C. V. (1975). Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 187-200.

Bergin, A., & Jensen, J. (1990). Religiosity of psychotherapists: A national survey. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 27, 3-7. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.27.1.3

Bilgrave, D. P., & Deluty, R. H. (2002). Religious beliefs and political ideologies as predictors of psychotherapeutic orientations of clinical and counseling psychologists. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 39, 245-260. doi: 10.1037/00333204.39.3.245

Bolce, L., & De Maio, G. (1999). Religious outlook, culture war politics, and antipathy toward Christian fundamentalists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 29-61. doi: 10.1086/297702

Bolce, L., & De Maio, G. (2008). A prejudice for the thinking classes: Media exposure, political sophistication, and the anti-Christian fundamentalist. American Politics Research, 36, 155-185.

Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 27-34. doi: 10.1177.0963721413510932

Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40, 994-1002.

Chambers, J. R., Schlenker, B. R., & Collisson, B. (2012). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24, 140-149. doi: 10.1177/0956797612447820

Cremins, J. (2002). The rift between religion and psychotherapy: Can it be healed? Journal of Pastoral Counseling, 37, 10-26.

Critcher, C. R., & Ferguson, M. J. (2014). The cost of keeping it hidden: Decomposing concealment reveals what makes it depleting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 721-735. doi: 10.1037/a0033468

Delaney, H. D., Miller, W. R., & Bisono, A. M. (2013). Religiosity and spirituality among psychologists: A survey of clinician members of the American Psychological Association. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1(S), 95-106. doi:10.1037/2326.4500.1.S.95

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1-13. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430

Ellis, A. (1983). The case against religiosity. New York, NY: Institute for Rational Emotive Therapy.

Ellis, A. (1988). Is religiosity pathological? Free Inquiry, 18, 27-32.

Freud, S. (1927). The future of an illusion. London, England: Hogarth Press.

Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167-187. doi:10.1177/0003122412438225

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/Extrinsic measurement: I/E-Revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-354.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind. Why good people are divided by religion and politics. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

Hansen, N. D., Randazzo, K. V., Schwartz, A., Marshall, M., Kalis, D., Frazier, R., et al. (2006). Do we practice what we preach? An exploratory survey of multicultural psychotherapy competencies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 66-74. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.66

Hodge, D. R. (2006). Moving toward a more inclusive educational government? A multi-sample exploration of religious discrimination as seen through the eyes of students from various faith traditions. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 249-267.

Hodge, D. R. (2009). Secular privilege: Deconstructing the invisable rose-tinted sunglasses. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 28, 8-34. doi: 10.1080/15426430802643281

Hyers, L. L., & Hyers, C. (2008). Everyday Discrimination Experienced by Conservative Christians at a Secular University. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8, 113-137. doi: 10.1111/j.15302415.2008.00162.x

Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496-503. doi:10.1177/1745691612448792

Johnson, L., & Federman, E. J. (2014). Training, experience, and attitudes of VA psychologists regarding LGBT issues: Relation to practice and competence. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 10-18. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000019

Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2009). Groupthink in academia: Majoritarian department politics and the professional pyramid. The Independent Review, 13, 585-600.

Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: how five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184-194. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006

Marsden, G. M. (2015). Religious discrimination in academia. Society, 52, 19-22. doi: 10.1007/s12115014-9853-3

Mitchell, R. C., Davis, K. S., & Galupo, M. P. (2015). Comparing perceived experiences of prejudice among self-identified pluisexual individuals. Psychology & Sexuality, 6, 245-257. doi:10.1080/19419899.2014.940372

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 301-314.

Pelz, M. (2004). The political effects of evangelical religiosity. Paper presented at the Midwestern Political Science Association annual meeting. Chicago, IL. Pp 1-21.

Ragan, C., Malony, H., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1980). Psychologists and religion: Professional factors and personal belief. Review of Religious Research, 21, 208-217.

Redding, R. E. (2012). Likes attract: The sociopolitical groupthink of (social) psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 512-515. doi:10.1177/1745691612455206

Redding, R. E. (2013). Politicized science. Society, 50, 439-446. doi: 10.1007/s12115-013-9686-5

Riggs, D., Coleman, K., & Due, C. (2014). Healthcare experiences of gender diverse Australians: A mixedmethods, self-report survey. BMC Public Health, 14, 230. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-230. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/14712458-14-230.pdf

Rosik, C. H. (2014). Same-sex marriage and the boundaries of diversity: Will marriage and family therapy remain inclusive of religious and social conservatives? Marriage & Family Review, 50, 714-737. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2014.938796

Rosik, C. H., Dinges, L. J., & Saavedra, N. (2013). Moral intuitions and attitudes toward gay men: Can moral psychology add to our understanding of homonegativity? Journal of Psychology and Theology, 41, 315-326.

Rosik, C. H., & Smith, L. L. (2009). Perceptions of religiously based discrimination among Christian students in secular and Christian university settings. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 207-217. doi: 10.103/a00170076

Rosmarin, D. H., Green, D., Pirutinsky, S., & McKay, D. (2013). Attitudes toward spirituality/religion among members of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44, 424-433. doi: 10.1037/a0035218

Rothman, S., Nevitte, N., & Lichter, S. R. (2005). Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty. The Forum, 3, 1-16. doi: 10.1007/s12129-005-1008-y

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 921-948. doi: 10.1037/a0035754

Sevensky, R. (1984). Religion, psychology, and mental health. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 38, 73-86.

Stark, R. (2004). For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stark, R. (2014). How the West won: The neglected story of the triumph of modernity. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Steensland, B., & Wright, E. L. (2014). American Evangelicals and conservative politics: Past, present, and future. Sociology Compass, 8, 705-717.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A.M.B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286. doi:10.1037/00003-066X.62.4.271

Talheim, T., Haidt, J., Oishi, S., Zhang, X., Miao, F. F., and Chen, S. (2015). Liberals think more analytically (more "WEIRD") than conservatives. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 250-267. doi: 10.1177/0146167214563672

Tetlock, P. E. (2012). Rational versus irrational prejudices: How problematic is the ideological lopsidedness of social psychology? Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 7, 519-521. doi:10.1177/1745691612454305

Thalheimer, F. (1973). Religiousity and secularization in the academic professions. Sociology of Education, 46, 183-202.

Tobin, G. A., & Weinberg A. K. (2007). Religious beliefs and behavior of college faculty. Retrieved from info@JewishResearch.org

Twenge, J. M., Exline, J. J., Grubbs, J. B., Sastry, R., & Campbell, K. (2015). Generational and time period differences in American adolescents' religious orientation, 1966-2014. PloS One, 10(5), e0121454. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121454

Wetherell, G. A., Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2013). Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 658-667. doi: 10.1177/1948550613476096

Yancey, G. (2010). Who has religious prejudice? Differing sources of anti-religious animosity in the United States. Review of Religious Research, 52, 159-171.

Yancey, G. (2012). Recalibrating academic bias. Acad. Quest., 25, 267-278. doi: 10.1007/s12129-012-9282-y

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher H. Rosik, Link Care Center, 1734 W. Shaw Ave., Fresno, CA 93711. E-mail: christopherrosik@linkcare.org

Christopher H. Rosik (PhD., Psychology, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology) is a psychologist and director of research at the Link Care Center in Fresno California and a clinical faculty member of Fresno Pacific University. His research interests include the intersection of religion, sexual orientation, and prejudice, missionary member care, and dissociative disorders.

Nicole K. Teraoka, BA., is a graduate of Fresno Pacific University, Fresno, CA, where she majored in psychology. Her research interests include the development and treatment of obsessive compulsive disorders.

James D. Moretto, B.A., is a graduate of Fresno Pacific University, where he received his degree in psychology. His topics of interest include moral development, social perception, and the effects of priming.

Table 1
Survey Responses (in Percentages) Regarding Faith-Based
Professional Concerns and Prejudicial Treatment

                                            Religious Affiliation

Question and Response           Full      Evangelical    Mainline
                               Sample      (n = 237)      (n = 61)
                              (n = 343)       (a)            (a)

I am concerned that restrictions will be placed on my ability to apply
my faith to my work.

Strongly agree                  21.2          25.9          8.2
Moderately agree                21.0          24.1          16.3
Slightly agree                  12.8          11.8          16.3
Neither agree nor disagree       3.5          2.5           1.6
Slightly disagree                4.7          3.8           4.9
Moderately disagree             15.7          13.1          18.0
Strongly disagree               21.0          19.8          34.4

I anticipate that it will be more difficult in the future to be a
Christian in my profession.

Strongly agree                  25.1          28.7          13.1
Moderately agree                25.4          27.8          24.6
Slightly agree                   9.9          10.5          4.9
Neither agree nor disagree       7.6          5.9           11.5
Slightly disagree                7.3          5.5           3.3
Moderately disagree             12.5          10.1          21.3
Strongly disagree               12.2          11.4          21.3

I have had to become more careful about publicly mentioning my
Christian faith over the years.

Strongly agree                   9.3
Moderately agree                15.5
Slightly agree                  14.3
Neither agree nor disagree       9.0
Slightly disagree               11.4
Moderately disagree             16.9
Strongly disagree               23.5

(a) Forty-five individuals identified as something other than
evangelical or mainline and were not included as a category under
Religious Affiliation.

Table 2
Survey Responses (in Percentages) Regarding Unfair or
Prejudicial Treatment and Disparagement (n = 343)

                             Colleague Reference Group

Question and response         Secular     Christian

I am concerned about receiving unfair or prejudicial
treatment from SECULAR (CHRISTIAN) colleagues because of
my Christian beliefs.

Strongly agree                  18.7         4.7
Moderately agree                25.7        11.1
Slightly agree                  19.2        18.7
Neither agree nor disagree      7.3          7.9
Slightly disagree               7.6         11.7
Moderately disagree             12.2        19.0
Strongly disagree               9.3         27.1

How often have you heard SECULAR (CHRISTIAN) colleagues
make disparaging remarks about Christian therapists or
educators because of their Christian beliefs?

Very often                      5.2          3.2
Often                           19.5         7.3
Occasionally                    45.8        33.3
Rarely                          25.1        38.9
Never                           4.4         17.3

How often have you been treated unfairly by SECULAR
(CHRISTIAN) colleagues because of your Christian
beliefs? (a)

Very often                      1.5          1.7
Often                           3.8          3.2
Occasionally                    30.9        16.6
Rarely                          42.3        37.9
Never                           21.6        40.5

(a) n = 342 for Christian colleague reference group

Table 3
Survey Responses (in Percentages) Regarding Engagement in
Self-Censorship

                               Colleague Reference Group

Question and response           Secular     Christian

There are topics I have chosen not to speak, write, or
research about because of potential negative professional
consequences from SECULAR (CHRISTIAN) colleagues. (a)

Strongly agree                    9.4          5.0
Moderately agree                  13.8        13.1
Slightly agree                    22.9        20.5
Neither agree nor disagree        15.0        12.8
Slightly disagree                 6.5          6.3
Moderately disagree               12.6        17.6
Strongly disagree                 19.7        24.7

Has the possibility of negative professional consequences
from SECULAR (CHRISTIAN) colleagues ever led you to avoid
speaking, writing, or researching on ...
(check all that apply): (b)

Marriage                          19.5        15.2
Race                              4.4          4.4
Moral Issues                      29.4        16.0
Intelligence                      3.5          1.7
Homosexuality                     46.1        35.6
Generic spirituality/faith        7.0          8.5
Christian spirituality/faith      26.8        12.5
Political issues                  22.2        21.9
Evolution                         13.7        13.4
Theological issues                18.1        16.9
Abortion                          23.0        16.3
Other                             3.5          5.8

How many Christian colleagues do you know who have chosen
not to speak, write, or research about a topic because of
potential professional consequences from SECULAR
(CHRISTIAN) coleagues? (c)

None                              54.0        59.8
One                               9.6         11.7
Two                               23.0        21.0
More than two                     13.4         7.5

(a) n = 340 (secular) and 336 (Christian). (b) n = 343.
(c)n = 335 (secular) and 333 (Christian)