A recent study published in the journal Psychology of Religion and Spirituality has shed light on the stereotypes people hold about atheists and theists when it comes to relationships. The findings indicate that atheists are perceived as more likely to engage in infidelity and adopt cost-inducing strategies in relationships, while theists are seen as more inclined towards benefit-provisioning behaviors.
Researchers Mitch Brown and Patrick R. Neiswender of the University of Arkansas aimed to understand how stereotypes about atheists and theists influence perceptions of their behavior in relationships. According to sexual strategies theory, individuals seek mates who demonstrate commitment and benevolence, which are crucial for successful long-term relationships.
Previous research has shown that religiosity often signals monogamous intent and trustworthiness, making religious individuals appear desirable for long-term mating. On the other hand, atheism is often associated with untrustworthiness and a lack of commitment, fostering stereotypes that atheists are more prone to exploitative behaviors.
To explore how stereotypes about atheist influences perceptions of the likelihood of infidelity and use of mate retention strategies, the researchers conducted three studies with a total of 432 participants from a large public university in the Southeastern United States.
The first study aimed to identify the expectations people have regarding the reproductive strategies of atheists versus theists. The researchers recruited 156 undergraduates from a large public university in the Southeastern United States. The participants comprised 112 women, 43 men, and one individual identifying as non-binary, with an average age of 18.96 years. The majority (84.6%) identified as White, and the sample included 111 theists, 26 agnostics, and 18 atheists.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: they read a vignette about a fictional college student named Henry, who was either described as an atheist or a theist. The vignette provided information about Henry’s relationship status and activities but differed only in terms of his religious beliefs.
After reading the vignette, participants rated Henry’s likelihood of engaging in various mate retention behaviors using a scale derived from the Mate Retention Inventory–Short Form. This scale included 19 subscales representing different tactics, such as benefit-provisioning and cost-inducing behaviors.
Benefit-provisioning behaviors in relationships include actions that enhance the partner’s well-being and strengthen the bond, such as showing love and care, making personal sacrifices, enhancing personal appearance, providing gifts and financial support, publicly affirming the relationship, and using sexual intimacy to reinforce commitment.
In contrast, cost-inducing behaviors impose negative consequences to deter infidelity and maintain control, including reacting strongly to infidelity threats, restricting the partner’s social interactions, closely monitoring their activities, inducing jealousy, criticizing the partner to lower their self-esteem, speaking negatively about rivals, and even engaging in physical aggression against potential competitors.
The participants also assessed Henry’s interest in long-term versus short-term mating and his propensity for infidelity.
In the first study, participants consistently viewed Henry as more likely to use sexual inducement tactics and be prone to infidelity when described as an atheist compared to a theist. Specifically, 45.5% of participants rated the atheist Henry as likely to use sexual inducement, compared to 26.8% for the theist Henry. Similarly, 28.8% perceived the atheist Henry as prone to infidelity, while only 19.6% thought the same of the theist Henry.
Participants also perceived Henry as more interested in short-term mating when described as an atheist (32.3%) compared to a theist (16.7%), while the theist Henry was seen as more interested in long-term mating (62.6% vs. 49.7% for the atheist Henry).
The second study sought to replicate and extend the findings of the first study by introducing the variable of physical attractiveness. The researchers recruited 210 undergraduates, again from a large public university in the Southeastern United States. The sample included 150 women and 60 men, with an average age of 18.79 years. Similar to the first study, the majority (84.3%) identified as White, and the sample included 164 theists, 40 agnostics, and six atheists.
Participants were assigned to one of four conditions in a 2×2 factorial design: they read the same vignettes from the first study, describing Henry as either an atheist or a theist, but this time paired with a photograph of either an attractive or unattractive man. The photographs were selected from the Chicago Faces Database, which had previously been normed on attractiveness. Participants rated Henry’s likelihood of engaging in mate retention behaviors, interest in long-term versus short-term mating, and propensity for infidelity using the same scales as in the first study.
The second study replicated these findings, with participants again perceiving the atheist Henry as more likely to use cost-inducing strategies and be interested in short-term mating. Interestingly, physical attractiveness did not significantly alter these perceptions. Both attractive and unattractive atheists were viewed similarly in terms of their propensity for cost-inducing behaviors and infidelity.
The third study explored the mental representations people have of atheists and theists and how these representations influence expectations of mate retention behaviors. The researchers recruited 66 undergraduates from the same university, with 51 women and 15 men participating. The average age was 18.85 years, and the sample was predominantly White (83.3%), with 50 participants identifying as theists, 14 as unsure, and two as atheists.
Participants were shown two images generated through a reverse-correlation procedure, which created composite faces representing the typical appearance of an atheist and a theist based on aggregated data from previous studies. These images had been identified in earlier research as connoting morality for the theist and immorality for the atheist.
Participants rated these faces using the same mate retention scales from the previous studies, evaluating the perceived likelihood of the individuals engaging in benefit-provisioning and cost-inducing behaviors, as well as their interest in long-term versus short-term mating and propensity for infidelity.
The results were consistent with the previous studies: the atheist face was perceived as more prone to infidelity and cost-inducing strategies, while the theist face was seen as more likely to provide benefits and engage in long-term mating behaviors.
“Atheism exhibits a persistent suite of stereotypes that implicate them as disinterested in adhering to broader codified interpersonal rules,” the researchers wrote. “Such perceptions would position them to appear prone to promiscuous reproductive strategies and aggressive relationship behavior. This program of research has provided evidence for how these mental representations of irreligiosity track expectations of relationship conflict.”
While the findings provide valuable insights into stereotypes about atheists and theists, the study has some limitations. The sample was predominantly from the Southeastern United States, a region known for higher religiosity, which may influence the generalizability of the results. Future research should explore these stereotypes in more diverse and less religiously homogeneous populations.
Additionally, the study focused primarily on male targets. Future research should examine perceptions of female targets to see if similar stereotypes apply and how they might differ across genders.
Another direction for future research could involve examining the actual mate retention behaviors of atheists and theists to see if they align with these stereotypes. Understanding whether these perceptions have a basis in reality or are purely driven by prejudice could help in addressing and mitigating the negative stereotypes associated with atheism.
The study, “Lay Theories of Mating Interest and Mate Retention Strategies for Atheists and Theists in the Southern United States,” was published April 4, 2024.
