Perceived Islamophobia and Religious Identity among Muslims in Western Societies:

A Quantitative Study

Melissa L. Grupe, MA, LCPC

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology

May 15, 2015

 ProQuest Number: 3736800

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 3736800

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Unpublished Work

Copyright 2015 by Melissa L. Grupe, MA, LCPC

All Rights Reserved

 Perceived Islamophobia and Religious Identity among Muslims in Western Societies: A

Quantitative Study

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology

Melissa L. Grupe, MA, LCPC

2015

Approved By:

Philip Adu, PhD, Chairperson

Methodology Expert
National Center for Academic & Dissertation Excellence
Program Lead, Ed.D. Educational Psychology and Technology
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Roger Finke, PhD, Member

Distinguished Professor of Sociology
Pennsylvania State University
Director of the Association of Religion Data Archives

Kris Vasquez, PhD, Member

Professor of Psychology
Alverno College
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee members, Dr.

Philip Adu, Dr. Roger Finke, and Dr. Kris Vasquez. Dr. Philip Adu, with your expertise in

methodology and guidance in structuring the study, I was able to take an abstract notion of my

study and make it a reality. Dr. Roger Finke, with your expertise in religious persecution, I was

able to enhance my understanding of a topic that is rarely studied in psychology. Dr. Kris

Vasquez, with your expertise in prejudice, I was able to effectively navigate a field of

psychology that is fairly foreign to me.

I am very grateful for the assistance of the gateway organizations in assisting with the

wording and distribution of the measurement tool. Without the kindness and generosity of this

assistance, this study would not have been possible. Thank you for all of the work that you and

your organizations do.

Mr. Joseph Grieboski

President and CEO
Grieboski Global Strategies

Mr. Oussama Jammal

Chairman
Muslim American Society Public Affairs and Civic Engagement (MAS-PACE)

Dr. Sayyid Sayeed

National Director
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)

Mr. Corey P. Saylor

Director
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
 Abstract

This quantitative study aimed to better understand the interaction between perceived

Islamophobia, religious identity, and nation among Muslim minorities in Western societies.

Social identity theory suggests that religious identity will be strengthened when faced with

perceived Islamophobia yet may differ between national contexts. Data were gathered from 179

Muslim respondents in the US and UK. Nation was found to impact perceived Islamophobia in

media, with US Muslim respondents indicating a higher level of perceived Islamophobia in

media compared to UK respondents. Perceived Islamophobia in media was found to be

positively correlated with religious identity and all of its subscales. Conversion status and

gender were found to be predictors of perceived Islamophobia. Implications and limitations are

discussed.
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Nature of the Study ........................................................................................... 6

Background of the Problem............................................................................................. 6

Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 10

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 12

Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................. 14

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 15

Nation ....................................................................................................................... 16

Perceived Islamophobia ........................................................................................... 17

Religious Identity ..................................................................................................... 18

Scope of the Study......................................................................................................... 18

Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................... 19

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 19

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 21

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 21

Research Strategy .......................................................................................................... 22

Internationalization of Religious Freedom .................................................................... 22

Western Societies and Islam ......................................................................................... 25

United States ........................................................................................................... 25

United Kingdom...................................................................................................... 29

i
 Islamophobia ................................................................................................................. 33

Perceived Islamophobia ................................................................................................ 35

Religious Identity .......................................................................................................... 45

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 59

Chapter 3: Research Design and Method.......................................................................... 60

Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................... 60

Research Questions, Hypotheses and Rationales .......................................................... 61

Research Design ............................................................................................................ 62

Population and Sample .................................................................................................. 63

Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 65

Instrumentation.............................................................................................................. 66

Data Processing ............................................................................................................. 67

Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 68

Ethical Assurances ........................................................................................................ 68

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 70

Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 71

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 71

Setting............................................................................................................................ 71

Demographics................................................................................................................ 72

Results ........................................................................................................................... 74

Additional Findings ....................................................................................................... 80

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 83

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions............................................................................ 86

ii
 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 86

Interpretation of Findings .............................................................................................. 87

Implications ................................................................................................................... 90

Limitations .................................................................................................................... 91

Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 93

Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 94

References ......................................................................................................................... 96

Appendix A: Perceived Islamophobia Scale................................................................... 103

Appendix B: Multi-Religion Identity Measure ............................................................... 104

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1.1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 179).73

Table 1.2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 179).74

Table 2. MANOVA Analysis on the Impact of Nation on Perceived Islamophobia...76

Table 3. Controlling for Conversion Status to Test Relationship between PIS and MRIM....78

Table 4. Correlations between Religious Identity and Perceived Islamophobia.....80

Table 5. Impact of Demographic Variables on Perceived Islamophobia....81

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Interaction between Nation, Perceived Islamophobia, and Religious Identity..16

Figure 2. Relationship between PIS and MRIM when Controlling for Conversion Status...78

Figure 3. Impact of Gender on Perceived Islamophobia82

Figure 4. Impact of Conversion on Perceived Islamophobia.....83

v
 6

Chapter 1: Nature of the Study

Background of the Problem

Human rights were established and dispersed across the globe by Western society

following the devastation of World War II. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR; United Nations, 1948) was developed to protect future generations of the global

community from experiencing the atrocities of the Holocaust (Fox, Prilleltensky, & Austin,

2011). According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR, 2015),

human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of

residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status (What

are human rights? section, para. 1). Despite the establishment of international entities that

address human rights violations, the world continues to experience abuses across the globe.

A human rights violation that permeates the global community and receives minimal

attention is the inhibiting of religious freedom. Religious freedom is protected by the UDHR,

and is defined in social sciences as the absence of government discrimination, restrictions,

regulations and societal pressures on religious individuals or groups. This allows for individuals

to change religions, or propagate their message within society with the intent of winning new

adherents (The ARDA, 2015, Religion Dictionary section, para. 18). This freedom is violated

through religious regulation, the governmental and societal limitation of the practice,

profession, or selection of religion (Religion Dictionary section, para. 18). It is also violated by

religious persecution, the severe discrimination that stems from ones faith (Hodge, 2007, p.

141), includes the following:

Surveillance by police sanctions against holding positions in government or education;

denial of rights to assemble; confiscation of property; severe restrictions against the

 7

construction or repair of houses of worship; state-sponsored slander campaigns; and

prohibiting against publishing, distributing, or processing religious literature. (p. 141)

This persecution can turn violent, including abduction, arrest, beatings, enslavement,

compulsory conversions, forced marriage, labor camp detentions, mass resettlement, rape,

torture, death, and even genocide (Hodge, 2007, p. 141).

Religious persecution is a human rights violation evident throughout history. Barrett and

Johnson reported that more than 200 million persons across all major religious traditions have

been killed because of their religious affiliation during the past two millennia (as cited in Grim

& Finke, 2007, para. 4). In the preceding century, ethnic cleansing based on religion took the

lives of 170 million people (Davis, 2002). From 2000 to 2007, religious persecution in the form

of physical displacement occurred in 123 of 143 countries with 36 of those countries having over

1,000 victims (Grim & Finke, 2011). Within this same time period, 25 countries had over

10,000 victims of religious persecution while more than five countries had over 1,000

individuals impacted by violent religious persecution.

This global phenomenon is experienced around the world by diverse religious groups.

According to Hodge (2007), more than one-half of the worlds population lives under

authorities that severely restrict or prohibit the freedom to believe and practice the faith of their

choice (p. 141). Grim and Finke (2007) reported that religious persecution is present in every

region of the globe (para. 2). Violent religious persecution is commonplace in South Asia, the

Middle East, and North Africa (Grim & Finke, 2011). The most conspicuous types of nations

that perpetuate religious persecution are communist (e.g.., North Korea and China), nationalist

(e.g., Burma/Myanmar and Eritrea), and radical Islamist (e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia; Marshall,

2008). The regions with fewer incidents of violent religious persecution (e.g., Sub-Saharan
 8

Africa, Europe, and the Western Hemisphere) engage in religious persecution practices (Grim &

Finke, 2011). Religious persecution is experienced by all major and minor religions. This

includes globally recognized historical events, such as against Jews, Muslims, and Christians

(Davis, 2002; Grim & Finke, 2007; Hodge, 2012; Marshall, 2008). There are also documented

instances against Ahmadis, Scientologists, Bahais, Buddhists, Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus,

Falun Gong, atheists, and agnostics.

The complex and vast reality of religious persecution requires an approach that allows for

a complete and in depth comprehension that can be applied across the globe. International

Psychology allows for a culturally-sensitive approach to tease apart the complexities of this

social phenomenon. This newly established discipline is founded in critical psychology, which

questions the internationalization of Western-based psychology to explain diverse phenomena

through a Eurocentric viewpoint (Fox et al., 2011). These theories and practices are criticized as

perpetuating the cultures of the originating societies, being minimally applicable and tested

within the global majority, and neglectful of the impact of culture on human behavior (Arnett,

2008; Berry, 2013). The narrowness of those theories and interventions are linked to the origins

of the studies, cultural foundations, and the reality that the majority of the world does not

experience life the same way as those represented in the literature (Arnett, 2008; Berry, 2013).

Psychology has largely ignored the influence of culture on behavior and disregards theories or

data from sources outside of the European and American countries (Segall, Lonner, & Berry,

1998). International Psychology stresses the importance of culture and how the individual

cannot be separated from the context in which he or she exists (Christopher, Wendt, Marecek, &

Goodman, 2014).
 9

This study embraces Cross-Cultural Psychologys approach to studying culture and

behavior. Cross-Cultural Psychology perceives culture to be distinct from behavior (Greenfield,

2000; Segall et al., 1998; Sinha, 2002). Culture is seen as a variable that can be separated from

behavior and analyzed to determine how culture influences behavior and vice versa within and

across groups (Segall et al., 1998). This approach to understanding culture and behavior posits

that similarities exist among people across the globe and that culture impacts how these

behaviors develop and manifest. Cross-Cultural Psychology ensure[s] that the broadest range

of psychological topics be explored within the broadest possible spectrum of ethnicity and

culture and by diverse methodologies (p. 1102). This approach conducts cross-cultural

comparisons by applying valid and reliable procedures established in one culture to other

cultures (Greenfield, 2008).

Muslim minorities residing in Western societies may be experiencing human rights

violations due to Islamophobia. Even though Western societies do not engage in violent

religious persecution to the same extent as other countries, religious persecution is evident in the

Western Hemisphere (Grim & Finke, 2011). Religion is a topic that has been sparsely

researched across various psychological and social science disciplines (Hodge, 2007; Peek,

2005; Tarakeshwar, Stanton, & Pargament, 2003; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic,

2012). Muslims lived experiences and perceptions are neglected in psychological theory and

research (Amer & Bagasra, 2013). The magnitude of Islamophobia in Western societies (Alam

& Husband, 2013; Amer & Bagasra, 2013; Everett et al., 2015; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood,

2015) and growth of Muslim populations across the globe (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Peek,

2005) suggest that international research and intervention may be beneficial.

 10

Problem Statement

Recent international events have contributed to an increase in fear towards Muslims and

Islam in Western societies. The terrorist acts on September 11, 2001 in the United States (US)

are connected to Muslim Americans experiencing an increase in institutional and organizational

discrimination (Amer & Bagasra, 2013). The 2005 7/7 bombings in London exacerbated

Islamophobia in the United Kingdom (UK), manifesting as political and societal oppression

(Alam & Husband, 2013; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). Visible markers of religious

affiliation made Muslims more susceptible to religious persecution (Awad, 2010). Within the

US and UK, Muslims experience limited education opportunities, limited employment

opportunities, heightened surveillance, hate crimes, legal ramifications, and poor representation

in media (Alam & Husband, 2013; Amer & Bagasra, 2013; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015).

Despite the increasing severity and pervasiveness of fear towards Islam and Muslims in

Western societies, the field of psychology is limited in its understanding and effectiveness in

combating this social phenomenon. Psychological research has historically neglected the

realities of this marginalized population (Amer & Bagasra, 2013) and has been criticized as

misrepresenting the Muslim population (Awad, 2010). Psychological research is based on 5% of

the worlds population, heavily representing those who are Western, educated, industrialized,

rich, and [from] democratic societies (Christopher et al., 2014, p. 645) and of the majority

religious group (Amer & Bagasra, 2013; Arnett, 2008). The theories and services constructed

from the research lack the required cultural sensitivity and generalizability to ethically and

effectively understand the perspectives and reality of the Muslim population (Amer & Bagasra,

2013). This increases the chance of psychologists doing harm since the absence of valid

scholarly literature about this community [may result in] psychologists [being] inadvertently
 11

swayed by the stereotypes and anti-Muslim rhetoric prevalent in mainstream sociopolitical

discourse (Amer & Bagasra, 2013, p. 135).

The representation of Muslim Americans in psychological literature revealed that

culturally-sensitive studies are needed. Amer and Bagasra (2013) conducted an analysis on the

quantity and quality of 559 publications concerning Muslim Americans. Of these, 172 empirical

studies on various topics utilized data collected from the Muslim American population. Between

1991 and 2001, 2 to 9 studies based on data from Muslim American samples were published

each year. In contrast, between 2000 and 2010, there was a 983% increase in the annual

number of publications relevant to Muslim Americans (p. 136). Of these publications, 53.3%

were not empirical studies (e.g., informal observations, theoretical analysis, literature reviews,

and personal reflections), 24.3% were quantitative studies (e.g., questionnaires, experiments, and

secondary data), 21.1% were qualitative studies (e.g., interviews, focus groups, ethnographies,

case studies, and archival text), seven studies used mixed-methodologies, and 22.5% were

related to counseling and clinical psychology (Amer & Bagasra, 2013).

The topics of these studies were examined for trends. The top three topics in the research

were intergroup relations (17.7%), culturally sensitive mental health practice (14.1%), and

terrorism and violence (9.3%; Amer & Bagasra, 2013). The research that focused on culturally

sensitive mental health practice discussed culture and the utilization of Western-based

psychotherapy approaches, spirituality in sessions, and professional development. The clinical

practice research contained limited empirical studies (6.6%) while the majority of the literature

were explorations of assumptions or professional experiences (Amer & Bagasra, 2013). Religion

was the focus of 35 publications as the researchers explored various subtopics (e.g.,

psychometric evaluations, religiosity, and roles of religious leaders) and 19 articles focused on
 12

Islamic psychology (e.g., human nature, personality, and dream analysis). Another topic that

was apparent in literature in regards to Muslims is Islamophobia, a fear-based response towards

Islam and its adherents (Kunst, Sam, & Ullberberg, 2012).

The fear of Islam and Muslims held by Western societies is receiving more attention in

research. Islamophobia has been increasing in Western societies to the extent that some have

even drawn parallels between the current rise in Islamophobia to the anti-Semitism of Nazi

Germany (Amer & Bagasra, 2013, p. 135). Islamophobia has been referred to it as the

apartheid in Europe (zyrek, 2005, p. 511) and has been increasingly researched since

September 11, 2001 (Kunst, Tajamal, Sam, & Ulleberg, 2012). This study embraces the

definition of Islamophobia posed by Gottschalk and Greenberg (as cited in Kunst et al., 2012a),

which posits that Islamophobia is a social anxiety towards Islam and Muslim cultures (p. 2).

The impact of a religiously-based fear held by majority group towards the minority group

members religious identity is a critical factor to consider due to its impact on such factors as

adaptation to the host culture, psychological health, and identity formation (Chaudhury & Miller,

2008; Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b; Peek, 2005; Tajfel & Turner, 2004; Verkuyten,

2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). The problem that this research aims to address is the rise

in Islamophobia and the limited culturally-sensitive empirical research in psychology developed

from perspectives of Muslim samples in different nations (Amer & Bagasra, 2013).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study is to determine the effect of nation on perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity and to determine the relationship between perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity among Muslims in the US and the UK. The US and the UK

were selected for this study after a Google search revealed that these countries had the most
 13

Muslim support organizations compared to other Western societies. The US and the UK differ in

the basis of fear towards Muslims and Islam. The US fear is based in fear towards international

sources of terrorism (zyrek, 2005) while the UK fear is based in local sources of terrorism and

impacted by changes in national identity and the perceived role of Christianity in British society

(Mac an Gahill & Haywood, 2015).

Despite my attempts for several months, there was no response from UK-based

organizations, requiring the collection of the UK) data to be from the distribution of the survey

by those with contacts in the UK. This quantitative study utilized some of the aspects of Cross-

Cultural Psychology. It recognized how culture and context interact with behavior and sought to

specifically understand how national context impacted social identity formation (Greenfield,

2000; Segall et al., 1998; Sinha, 2002). This study utilized established methodological

approaches from one culture and applied to other cultures (Greenfield, 2000; Segall et al., 1998;

Sinha, 2002).

The research design of this study consisted of two sections. The first section of the study

was a quasi experimental portion that explored the impact of nation on perceived Islamophobia

and religious identity. This was a quasi experiment due to the lack of control group, random

assignment, and pre- and posttesting (Babbie, 2010) and residence and religious affiliation are

subject variables (Jackson, 2011). There was one independent variable (i.e., participants nation)

and two dependent variables (i.e., perceived Islamophobia and religious identity). In the original

conceptualization of this study, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was deemed

appropriate to analyze the data. Yet, this type of analysis was not able to be conducted due to the

dependent variables not being related. This resulted in the use of two independent t-tests, one on

nation and perceived Islamophobia and the second on nation and religious identity.
 14

The second section of the study considered the entire sample as one, and was a

correlation study on the variables perceived Islamophobia and religious identity. This required

the use of the Pearson product-moment correlation (Pearsons r). The data were then analyzed

for predictors of perceived Islamophobia (multiple regression).

The sample was accessed through the following gateway organizations: Council on

American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim American Society Public Affairs and Civic

Engagement (MAS-PACE), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Grieboski Global

Strategies. The data were collected through an online survey using the Perceived Islamophobia

Scale (PIS; Appendix A; Kunst et al., 2012a), the Multi-Religion Identity Measure (MRIM;

Appendix B, Abu-Rayya, Abu-Rayya & Khalil, 2009), and a demographic questionnaire. The

methodology and measurement tools are further elaborated upon in Chapter 3 of this study.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

There are two research questions in this study. Further elaboration on the rationale for

these questions, hypotheses, and predictions are detailed in Chapter 3.

Research Question1: Is there a statistically significant difference of perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity between Muslims in the US and the UK?

H11: There is a statistically significant effect of nation on perceived Islamophobia and

religious identity. This hypothesis is based on the social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner,

2004) which suggests that national context impacts identity formation (Verkuyten, 2007), and on

research showing differences on the impact of perceived Islamophobia on religious identity

across countries (Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b) and differences in how discrimination

impacts religious identity and discrimination across context (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Kunst

et al., 2012b; Peek, 2005; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).
 15

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between perceived Islamophobia and

religious identity?

H12: There is a statistically significant relationship between perceived Islamophobia and

religious identity. It was predicted that a positive relationship would exist between perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity. This was based on research suggesting that one will

strengthen their religious identity when faced with an identity threat (e.g., perceived

Islamophobia; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).

Conceptual Framework

This quantitative study is focused on understanding the interplay between culture and

behavior in relation to religious identity and perceived Islamophobia within context. Religion is

largely neglected in the study of culture (Tarakeshwar et al., 2003) and social identity formation

(Verkuyten, 2007). Nation has been found to impact religious identity and perceived

Islamophobia (Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten &

Martinovic, 2012). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2004) posits that in-group identity

formation is impacted by national context and that religious identity fluctuates depending on the

host society (Verkuyten, 2007). Religious identity strength has been found to vary depending on

the national context (Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b). Religious identity is crucial to

study due to the impact that religion has on beliefs and behaviors (Tarakeshwar et al., 2003;

Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Discrimination has been found to increase

religious identity (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Peek, 2005; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).

Religious identity has been found to be influenced by societal factors and threats to identity and

changes in strength and adherence during ones lifetime (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Peek, 2005;

Verkuyten, 2007). This study proposes that the nation one lives in impacts perceived
 16

Islamophobia (Kunst, et al., 2012a; Kunst, et al., 2012b; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten &

Martinovic, 2012), or Muslim minorities own perception of islamophobia [at the group level]

in their societies of settlement (Kunst et al., 2012a, p. 1), which influences Muslims religious

identity (Tajfel & Turner; 2004; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012), a

multidimensional social group identity that encompasses group belongingness, level of religious

beliefs, and engagement in religious practices (Figure 1; Abu-Rayya et al., 2009).

Nation Perceived Islamophobia Religious Identity

Figure 1

Interaction between Nation, Perceived Islamophobia, and Religious Identity

Nation. The nation in which one resides has been found to impact how Islam is practiced,

identity formation, and intergroup relations (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Kunst et al., 2012a;

Kunst et al., 2012b; Peek, 2005; Tarakeshwar et al., 2003; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten &

Martinovic, 2012). Even within the same context, not everyone comes to the same resolution

on how to practice even the most basic tenets of Islam (Chaudhury & Miller, 2003, p. 391).

Research has demonstrated that Islam varies in its manifestation across cultures (Chaudhury &

Miller, 2008; Tarakeshwar et al., 2003). The environment has been found to impact religious

identity formation with some Muslims strengthening their religion or hiding their religion when

faced with societal pressures based on their religious affiliation (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008;

Peek, 2005). Following social identity theory, it has been argued that group identification and
 17

intergroup relationships should be examined in their wider social and political context

(Verkuyten, 2007, p. 353).

The sociopolitical environment within the nation impacts how the majority culture is

perceived by the minority group (Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b; Verkuyten, 2007;

Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Studies suggest that national identity and religious identity may

not always coexist, resulting in the individual embracing one over the other if the identities are

felt to clash (e.g., one cannot be Muslim and British; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic,

2012). One national factor that may influence religious identity and perceived Islamophobia is

that the UK society is restructuring its national identity, causing identity conflict among the UK

Muslim minorities (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). Sirin et al. (2008) found that American

Muslims national identity and religious identity were positively related, suggesting that both

identities could coexist among US Muslim minorities.

Perceived Islamophobia. This study strives to represent the perspectives of Muslims of

Islamophobia. Islamophobia is defined as a social anxiety towards Islam and Muslim

cultures (Gottschalk & Greenberg, as cited in Kunst el al., 2012a, p. 2) which occurs at a

personal and at a group level, while perceived Islamophobia is Muslim minorities own

perception of islamophobia [at the group level] in their societies of settlement (Kunst et al.,

2012a, p. 1). A common theme found in studies exploring the experience and perception of

Islamophobia among Muslim minorities in Western societies is its impact on how societies

identify Muslims and how Muslims form their own identity (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 21015;

Moosavi, 2015). Research is minimal on perceived Islamophobia as studies focus on perceived

discrimination adapted from ethnic discrimination (Kunst et al., 2012a). Due to the interplay of

multiple identities (ethnicity versus religion; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012) and how these
 18

factors are influenced by perceived discrimination (Hodge, 2007; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten &

Martinovic, 2012), this study focuses on religiously-based group level stigma and how it impacts

Muslim identification. Perceived Islamophobia has been found to have a greater impact on

Muslims minorities identity than discrimination (Kunst et al., 2012a).

Religious identity. This study is focused on religious identity due to ones level of group

identity being impactful on his or her behavior. Group identification is connected to group

comparison and the level of group adherence impacts ones reaction to group level factors

(Verkuyten, 2007). Religious identity is minimally studied despite religion being of profound

importance to peoples lives and religious groups are among the more salient buttresses of

identity (p. 343). The manner in which religious identity is operationalized and studied varies

greatly in research (Verkuyten, 2007; Abu-Rayya et al., 2009). For this study, religious identity

is defined as a social group identity of religion that is based on a multidimensional level of

religiousness, including ones perception of group belongingness, devotion and commitment to

the religion, and engagement in religious activities and practices (Verkuyten, 2007; Abu-Rayya

et al., 2009).

Scope of the Study

This study desires to better understand the interactions between two nations, perceived

Islamophobia, and religious identity. It does not explore the relationship of other identities, such

as national identity or ethnic identity. Also, this study does not consider immigration or

acculturation. It was desired to focus on the influence of a religiously-based fear on the religious

identity. The impact of understanding national context is limited by the chosen countries, US

and UK, due to the similarity between the countries. Two countries with stark differences may

have allowed for a better understanding of how those differences impacted perceived
 19

Islamophobia and religious identity. A cross-cultural comparison was not possible due to the

data collected, which limits the findings to be applied as a single sample. The participants were

self-reporting Muslims, which limits the study from other religious groups.

Definition of Key Terms

Islamophobia. A social anxiety towards Islam and Muslim cultures (Gottschalk &

Greenberg, as cited in Kunst el al., 2012a, p. 2) which occurs at the personal and group level.

Perceived Islamophobia. Muslim minorities perception of group level islamophobia in

their national context (Kunst et al., 2012a).

Religious identity. Social group identity encompassing multidimensional factors of

religiousness, including ones perception of group belongingness, devotion and commitment to

the religion, and engagement in religious activities and practices (Abu-Rayya et al., 2009).

Significance of the Study

This study is significant because it centralizes on two minimally research topics: religion

and the perceptions of Muslims. The study of religion will be beneficial to Cross-Cultural

Psychology, understanding such matters as intergroup relations, identity formation, universal

behaviors, immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Religious identity has been found to

impact intergroup relations and the manner in which one handles his or her multiple identities

has been found to differ between nations. This study may benefit Cross-Cultural Psychology by

exploring how religious identity is impacted by perceived Islamophobia between nations to

better understand similarities and differences. The Muslim population has not been extensively

represented in research which may impede theory construction and application. Perceived

Islamophobia has also been minimally researched. This study presents factors which Muslim

respondents perceive as Islamophobia and predictor variables. This study contributes to the
 20

importance of context on human experience, including historical, political, national, and global

factors.

Summary

This study is focused on nation, perceived Islamophobia, and religious identity among

Muslims in Western societies. The purpose of this quantitative study is to determine the effect of

nation on perceived Islamophobia and religious identity and to determine the relationship

between perceived Islamophobia and religious identity among Muslims in the US and the UK.

The social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 2004) posits that national context impacts

identity formation and that identity threats may result in individuals strengthening their in-group

identity (Verkuyten, 2007). This suggests that different national contexts, with differing levels

and types of identity threat (e.g., perceived Islamophobia), will prompt Muslims to change (e.g.,

strengthen or weaken) or maintain their religious identity. This study will add to the body of

literature concerned about religious identity and perceived Islamophobia.

The chapters of this study explore the development, literature review, methodology,

results, and analysis of the findings. Chapter 2 is the literature review that sets the historical,

political, and national context of the study and explores the current body of literature concerning

the constructs of this study. Chapter 3 explores the research design and method of the study

while explaining the rationale of the methods. Chapter 4 presents the results from the survey,

including the demographics of the sample, exploration of the research questions, and explanation

of additional findings. Chapter 5 discusses the findings in regards to the conceptual framework,

offers recommendations and implications, and explains the limitations of the study.
 21

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

International Psychology stresses the importance of context in order to comprehend the

experiences of the individual (Arnett, 2008; Berry, 2013; Kim, Yang, & Hwang, 2006).

Research on Islamophobia stresses the importance of context to comprehend the phenomenon

(Garner & Selod, 2015; zyrek, 2005). For this study, the context is set through a historical

and political analysis of the internationalization of religious freedom, a notion developed within

Western societies. Despite this universal human right, research suggests that Islamophobia is on

the rise in Western societies, including the US and UK (Alam & Husband, 2013; Amer &

Bagasra, 2013; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner,

2004) posits that national context and intergroup relations impact identity formation (Verkuyten,

2007). The factors within countries (e.g., sociopolitical environment, perceived Islamophobia)

impact how religious identity is formed and how the religious group perceives the majority group

(Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Due to this, the sociopolitical environments

of the US and UK are elaborated upon in order to understand the relative national environments.

Once the sociopolitical, national, and historical context are set, an analysis of the

literature on Islamophobia explores its construction as a fear-based response towards Muslims

and Islam and its impact in Western societies. This is followed by a review of literature on the

lived experience of Muslims in Western societies and the advent of perceived Islamophobia

becoming its own construct of religious stigma. The paper concludes with an analysis of

identity formation, religious identity formation, how religious identity is impact by identity

threats, and the measurement of religious identity.

 22

Research Strategy

The literature review was conducted using EBSCOhost, SAGE, Google Scholar, and the

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality journal. The terms used for the search were religious

persecution, religious oppression, religious regulation, religious freedom, religious identity,

Islamophobia, perceived Islamophobia, perceived discrimination, discrimination, conversion,

religious identity formation, social group identity, United States, United Kingdom, and Western

societies. I chose articles that dealt with the societal factors of religious persecution, how

religious persecution impacts societies at the micro and macro levels, the impact of Islamophobia

and perceived Islamophobia, the factors that perpetuate Islamophobia, identity formation, and

religious identity.

Internationalization of Religious Freedom

The protection of religious freedom is relatively new in global politics. Davis (2002)

posited that societies were historically governed in monarchical or totalitarian manners which

supported religious monopoly. The protection of religious freedom is evidenced as early as

1555, and is visible in early treaties, legislation, and the diplomatic protection of minority

religious groups (Lerner, 2000). The concept of religious freedom was born within democracy

as a counter to the historical global existence of a high level religious intolerance, persecution,

inquisitions, and religious wars (Davis, 2002, p. 221). The democratic perspective of religious

freedom has been embraced in the West and in the East to combat the atrocity of religious

persecution, and is supported in the constitutions of one-third of the worlds nations (Davis,

2002). This democratic stance posits that citizens embrace their own religion while the

government remains neutral, supporting a separation of the church and state. It changed the

governments role from mandating religious homogeneity to protecting religious diversity among

its citizens.
 23

The international movement of religious freedom grew in strength during the last century.

Two documents constituted the initial steps in the internationalization of religious freedom

(Lerner, 2000). The Covenant of the League of Nations sought to protect religious freedom with

Article 22, yet was unsuccessful. The 1948 International Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by the United Nations (UN) addressed the destruction of a

religious group in Article II. The UNs (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the

most crucial document in the internationalization of religious rights (Davis, 2002; Lerner, 2000)

and is the most embraced delineation of human rights in the world (Hodge, 2012). Article 18 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) declared:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes

freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with

others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,

worship and observance. (Art. 18)

This declaration obligated adopting states to morally comply with protecting the human rights of

its citizens and influenced future proclamations in the protection of religious freedom (Davis,

2002; Lerner, 2000).

The protection of religious freedom received minimal support in the international

community. It took several anti-Semitic acts in the 1960s for the UN to officially focus on

religious persecution (Lerner, 2000). Proclamations were established that required adopting

nations to legally comply with their mandates (Davis, 2002). In 1966, the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights were established by the UN (Lerner, 2000). In 1962, the UN recognized the

need for further protection of religious freedom and took approximately 20 years to produce the
 24

1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination

Based on Religion or Belief (Davis, 2002; UN, 1981). The Vienna Concluding Document was

authored in 1989. The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act was enacted due the efforts of

diverse religious groups (i.e., Jews, evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Buddhists, and Bahais)

and human rights activists (Grim & Finke, 2011). This act requires the United States State

Department to author an annual International Religious Freedom report on the global presence of

religious freedoms, religious regulation, and religious persecution.

Despite the political endeavors to internationalize and secure religious freedom, there

continues to be a need to protect religious groups against persecution. The political structure

thought to protect minority religious groups has historically proven itself detrimental.

Secularism, the supported remedy to protect religious minorities, is responsible for rationalizing

the most brutal massacres of religious, ethnic, and class-based minorities in the 20th century,

from the Jewish Holocaust to massive purges in the Soviet Union and Cambodia (zyrek,

2005, p. 510). A shift occurred in law to focus on prohibiting religious persecution, which has

its own difficulties due to vagueness of terms (e.g., hatred), and the rights of religious groups

continue to need protection (Lerner, 2000). Researchers have shown that constitutional clauses

that protect religious rights have limited effect on governments (Fox & Flores, 2009). A large

disparity exists between what constitutions protect and what the governments actually do. While

over 90% of nations have constitutional clauses for the protection of religious rights, more than

70% of nations restrict religious freedom (Fox & Flores, 2009). Despite the protection of

religious freedom within a nations constitution, Fox and Flores (2009) found that a nations

constitution has minimal impact on protecting religious groups from persecution.

 25

Western Societies and Islam

The protection of religious freedom developed in Western society. Despite this, the

perceived fear of Islam and Muslims in Western societies has been found to hinder Muslim

minorities religious identity and national identity (Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b;

Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Research indicates that Muslims are the

target of prejudice at a higher level than any other immigrant group across 30 European countries

while Islam is discriminated against more than any other religious group (Everett et al., 2015).

The Muslim population is otherized in Western society, placing the problem on the Muslims

and Islam, which is exemplified by the US depicting Islam as not being American (Garner &

Selod, 2015) and the portrayal of Muslims in Western societies as backward, irrational, and

inherently dangerous (Lee et al., 2013, p. 1). The magnitude of fear in Western societies exists

despite the reality that less than one percent of Muslims around the world have been involved in

any militant movement in the last 25 years (Ogan et al., 2014, p. 28). Given that identity

formation, including religious identity, is influenced by the national context and may differ

across countries according to the social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 2004), and the

national contexts of this study were selected due to convenience as opposed to stark differences,

the historical and sociopolitical context of the US and UK are examined (Kunst et al., 2012a;

Kunst et al., 2012b; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).

United States

The US was home to Native Americans prior to being colonized by the UK and was

founded in the pursuit of religious freedom. The British American colonies gained independence

in 1776 and the United States of America was established in 1783 (Central Intelligence Agency,

2015). Originally consisting of 37 states, the country grew in landmass through the 19th and 20th
 26

centuries. Racial relations were a major factor in the development of the country. Research

suggests that the fear of Muslims and Islam was a pivotal factor in the beginning of racism in the

US due to its link to the transatlantic slave trade (Ogan et al., 2014). Major events during US

history include the Civil War from 1861-1865, Great Depression in the 1930s and involvement

in World War I and World War II (CIA, 2015). The 1965 Immigration Act revoked the

restrictions set in the 1920s, which gave preference to Western European countries and resulted

in a largely Judeo-Christian immigrant population (Peek, 2005). This change in law resulted in

an increase of diversity within the country, including race, ethnicity, language, and religion. The

influx of immigrants and refugees resulted in the US becoming the most religiously diverse

country in the world (Peek, 2005). The US was born out of immigration and has grown into a

dominant power in the international community (The ARDA, 2015).

The US is located in North America. It is bordered by the North Atlantic Ocean and the

North Pacific Ocean and is between Canada and Mexico (CIA, 2015). The US is the third

largest country in the world and the third most populated. The American population consists of

318,892,103 individuals. The majority ethnic group is white (79.96%) while the minority ethnic

groups are black (12.85%), Asian (4.43%), Amerindian and Alaska native (0.97%), native

Hawaiian and other Pacific islander (0.18%), and two or more races (1.61%). The spoken

languages are English (79.2%), Spanish (12.9%), other Indo-European (3.8%), Asian and Pacific

island (3.3%), and other (0.9%). The majority religious group is Protestant (51.3%) while the

minority religious groups are Roman Catholic (23.9%), Mormon (1.7%), other Christian (1.6%),

Jewish (1.7%), Buddhist (0.7%), Muslim (0.6%), other or unspecified (2.5%), unaffiliated

(12.1%), and none (4%). The US government is a constitution-based federal republic with a

democratic foundation.
 27

The Muslim population makes up a small portion of the countrys population yet is the

target of marginalization. The US Muslim population is difficult to accurately measure due to

the structure of the measurement tools, yet is estimated to be approximately 3 to 7 million (Amer

& Bagasra, 2013; Chaudhury & Miller, 2008) and consists of South Asians, Arabs, and Africans

(Garner & Selod, 2015; Peek, 2005). It is estimated that 67% of American Muslims are

immigrants (Ghaffari & ifti, 2010). Islam is growing quickly in the US and may become the

second largest religious group in the country (Peek, 2005). Conversion to Islam is increasing

among Caucasians, Latinos, and Native Americans (Peek, 2005), quadrupling since September

11, 2001 (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). Research suggests that 25% of the US Muslim population

consists of converts (Inloes & Takim, 2014).

Disagreement exists as to when Islamophobia was first evidence in the US. Some argue

that Islamophobia was used to establish what it meant to be America while others postulate that

emerged at the time of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (Ogan et al., 2014). The US has a strong

history of racism and stratifying society based on racialized lines (Garner & Selod, 2015). In the

US, Muslims are racialized as Arab (Moosavi, 2015) due to religious identifiers (Garner &

Selod, 2015). Physical religious indicators, such as clothing or traditional names, are perceived

as un-American and a threat to society, exemplified by the belief that headscarves are oppressive

towards women (Garner & Selod, 2015).

Muslims in the US endure discrimination from societal and governmental sources. Amer

and Bagasra (2013) noted alarming rates of prejudice, discrimination, and hate crimes,

including violent assaults to property and person (p. 135) towards Muslim Americans after the

terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001. Hate crimes against Muslims have surged to

become one of the most common types of hate crime in America (Amer & Bagasra, 2013). US
 28

Muslims experience various types of institutionalized discrimination by the government and law

enforcement (e.g., surveillance, profiling, interrogation, detention, required immigrant

registrations, and deportation). US media portrayal of Muslims and Islam were found to vary

before and after September 11, 2001 (Ogan et al., 2014). Prior to the terrorist events, US media

negatively depicted Islam and Muslims by limiting reports to those involving the religious group

in armed conflict. After the terrorist acts, US media shifted to embracing the portrayal of Islam

as a symbolic threat (Stephan et al., 1999), reinforcing the perspective of Islam clashing with

Western society (Huntington, 1993) and neglecting to report stories that were contradictory to

this negative image (Ogan et al., 2014).

The US perspective of diversity is changing. The country has a strong tradition of

assimilation policy (Guimond et al., 2015). Focus has shifted to diversity at the societal and

governmental level for several decades. Despite this, Guimond et al. (2015) found that the

cultural norm of assimilation equals or surpasses that for multiculturalism. The US falls in the

middle of the assimilation and multiculturalism spectrum, resulting in a medium level of pro-

diversity policies (Guimond et al, 2013). Contrary to the embracing of assimilation, religious

regulation is low. The nation ranks high on religious freedom with the government minimally

restricting religious practice and having no religious laws (The ARDA, 2015). The US

government countered Islamophobia after September 11, 2001 by disallowing hatefulness

toward Islam and Muslim in US society (Jackson, 2010, p. 4).

The US fear of Islam and Muslims is largely based in fear of international sources of

terrorism. zyrek (2005) argued that the US is most concerned about Islamic terrorism, placing

the threat outside of the country. Conrad and Milton (2013) found that the general American

perception is that terrorism is caused by political and economic factors and is more prevalent in
 29

Muslim countries. This belief places religion as a crucial factor leading to conflict and Islam as a

cause of terrorism (Conrad & Milton, 2013). This is demonstrated in a 2011 Gallup poll that

found 55 percent of Americans believed that the Muslim world considers itself at war with the

United Sates and a 2011 CNN/ORC poll [found] 42 percent of those polled had an unfavorable

or somewhat unfavorable view of Muslim countries (Conrad & Milton, 2013, p. 331).

United Kingdom

The UKs historical context and foundational relationship with Islam differs from that of

the US. The fragmented relationship between the UK and Islam is defined by respect and

condemnation (Alam & Husband, 2013). Alam and Husband (2013) argued that suspicion of

the Other and a need to control the definition of that Otherness have been integral elements of

the creation and legitimation of British imperialism and colonialism (p. 237). At its peak, the

British Empire covered 25% of the globe in the 19th century (CIA, 2015; The ARDA, 2015).

The British Empire deteriorated in the first half of the 20th century, followed by a period of

growth and modernity for the second half of the century. To boost its economy following World

War II and during the 1960s and 1970s, the UK encouraged immigration from its former

colonies in South Asia (Kunst et al., 2012a; zyrek, 2005). The religious affiliation of the

immigrants was not a primary concern as the groups collective identity was based on ethnicity

and race (Kunst et al., 2012a; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). This shifted after the

international terrorist events shifted focus to religious affiliation and resulted in Muslims and

Islam being deemed as a minority group (Kunst et al., 2012a).

The UK is located in Western Europe. UK is short for the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland, which includes England, Scotland, and Wales (CIA, 2015). It is

contrived of islands in the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea located northwest of France.
 30

The British population consists of 63,742,977 individuals. The population is primarily white

(87.2%) while the minority ethnic groups are black/African/Caribbean/black British (3%),

Asian/Asian British: Indian (2.3%), Asian/Asian British: Pakistani (1.9%), mixed (2%), and

other (3.7%). The primary language is English, and the recognized regional languages are Scots

(approximately 30% in Scotland), Scottish Gaelic (approximately 60,000 in Scotland), Welsh

(approximately 20% of Wales), Irish (approximately 10% of Northern Ireland), and Cornish

(approximately 2,000 to 3,000 in Cornwall). The major religious group in the UK is Christianity

(including Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist; 59.5%) with the minority

religious groups consisting of Muslim (4.4%), Hindu (1.3%), other (2%), unspecified (7.2%),

and none (25.7%). The UK government is a constitutional monarchy and Commonwealth realm.

The Muslim community in the UK is a diverse population subjected to misrepresentation

and marginalization. The majority of Muslims in the UK are South Asian, specifically Pakistani

and Bangladeshi (Garner & Selod, 2015). Historically, strong racial tension was projected onto

Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups (Alam & Husband, 2013). Currently in the UK, Muslims are

racialized as South Asian (Moosavi, 2015). The British society shifted in collectively identifying

minority groups by ethnicity to defining the Muslim population as one religious group (Mac an

Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). The Muslim community is negatively portrayed in media, academic,

and political dialect, and is depicted as a detriment to society (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015).

British newspaper articles on the Muslim community have been found to promote perceived

threat (Stephan et al., 1999) in the form of realistic threat (e.g., terrorism) and symbolic threat

(e.g., combating worldviews; Ogan et al., 2014). Bangladeshi and Pakistani working-class men

experience one of the highest levels of unemployment, imprisonment, inadequate housing, and

poor healthcare (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). Compared to the other religious groups in
 31

the UK, Muslims were found to feel the most unsafe alone at home after dark or walking alone

in their local area (Moosavi, 2015, p. 46).

The UK is a multicultural, religiously pluralistic society. The UK falls in the middle of

the assimilation and multiculturalism spectrum, displaying a medium level of pro-diversity

policies (Guimond et al, 2013). In regards to religious freedom, the government minimally

restricts religious practices, is generally protective of religious freedom with exceptions, and has

some religious legislation (The ARDA, 2015). Religious discrimination is illegal in the UK

(Moosavi, 2015). Despite these factors, societal and government regulation is evident in the UK.

The societal attitudes toward other or nontraditional religious groups is hostile and established

religions try to hinder the activities of new religions (The ARDA, 2015). The treatment of

Muslims in Britain appears to be two-fold. While the humanist leftists advocate the acceptance

of the Muslim population (multiculturalism), Muslims are encouraged to embrace the

mainstream culture (assimilation; zyrek, 2005).

Governmental action has been found detrimental to the Muslim community. Two

policies in the UK, one promoting community cohesion while the other counters terrorism, are

found to exacerbate fear of Islam and Muslims in the British society (Alam & Husband, 2013).

The community cohesion policies were established due to riots in 2001 while the counter-

terrorism policies were created due to the 2005 bombings in the UK. These policies focused on

the Muslim communities, allowing for Islam to become focal points in political discourse. Alam

and Husband (2013) argued that these government policies facilitated a discourse and practices

that promoted anti-Muslim sentiments among the majority population, and significantly alienated

large sections of Britains Muslim populations (p. 236).

 32

The sociopolitical environment in the UK appears to be shifting. Multiculturalism is

being scrutinized as English nationalism strengthens (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015).

Multiculturalism has been heavily ridiculed since 2001, resulting in the country shying away

from promoting diversity (Guimond et al., 2015). The UK is experiencing societal shifts in

embracing a national identity, understanding the role of Christianity, and dealing with the global

Islamic identity (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). The UK has demonstrated an increase in

fear towards Islam and Muslims since the 1980s (Ogan et al., 2014). In a qualitative study on the

experience of Muslim men in the UK, the problem was argued to not be the Muslim community,

but rather the changes in the British society (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). Mac an Ghaill

and Haywood (2015) found that perception of Muslims being terrorists or susceptible to joining

terrorist movements is the projection of British fears onto the Muslim community. The study

suggested that the national identity and the role of Christianity is threatened by the globally

developing Islamic identity and conflicted by changes in role of religion in society and

secularism.

The US and UK are both multicultural societies with preference to assimilation over

cultural diversity. Historically, the UK has strong roots in imperialism while the US has strong

roots in racism. The US Muslim population is less than 1% of the US population, while the

British Muslim population contrives of 4.4% of the UK population. The US racializes Muslims

as Arab and Middle Eastern while the UK racializes Muslims as South Asian. Both countries

demonstrate high religious freedom practices while evidencing governmental action to counter

terrorism. The US fear is based in fear of international sources of terrorism while the UK fear is

based in local sources of terrorism and is experiencing shifts in national identity and the role of
 33

Christianity in British society. The differences in the national contexts may influence the

manner in the identity formation of Muslim minorities.

Islamophobia

Islamophobia is a phenomenon that lacks a clear definition and understanding in

research. It is so contested that there are those who question Islamophobias existence yet this

position is based in how the term is operationalized (Moosavi, 2015). Disagreement exists on

how the term is defined and how it is studied (Amer & Bagasra, 2013; Bleich, 2011; Elchardus

& Spruyt, 2013; Lee et al., 2013). The term originated in the 1990s to reference the harmful

rhetoric and actions directed at Islam and Muslims in Western liberal democracies (Bleich,

2011, p. 1581) and to stimulate negative perceptions towards the perpetrators. The 1997

publication by Runnymede Trust was instrumental in the exacerbation of Islamophobia in

Western societies (Alam & Husband, 2013). This publication (as cited in Alam & Husband,

2013) includes the following statements:

1. Islam seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to new realities.

2. Islam seen as separate and other (a) not having any aims or values in common with

other cultures (b) not affected by them (c) not influencing them

3. Islam seen as inferior to the West barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.

4. Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, engaged in a clash

of civilisations.

5. Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.

6. Criticisms made by Islam of the West rejected out of hand.

7. Hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and

exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

 34

8. Anti-Muslim hostility accepted as natural and normal. (p. 213)

The term Islamophobia spurred debates within the first decade of its creation. Arguments

suggested that Islamophobia is a generalized prejudice while others suggest the term includes

justified concerns towards Islamic practices (Bleich, 2011). This term shifted to being used in

research to better understand the various factors (e.g., history, presence, dimensions, intensity,

causes, and consequences) involved with negative perception and behaviors towards Islam and

Muslims. The use of the term increased after 2001 in Britain, France, and the US. Garner and

Selod (2015) found an increase publications on this social phenomenon in the 2000s, with the

majority occurring after 2010, with the largest increase in 2011. zyrek (2005) argued that a

thorough analysis that examines history, sociology, and politics is required to understand

Islamophobia as research limited to psychological or individual factors misses its complexity.

Islamophobia is systemic and is perpetuated at the micro level and the macro levels (Garner &

Selod, 2015). Limited research on Islamophobia considers context which neglects differences

across nations (Garner & Selod, 2015). Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015) criticized the

current study of Islamophobia as entrenched in subjectivity, suggesting culture-bound and

culture-blind theorization. The literature on Islamophobia was found to be reminiscent of early

anti-racist accounts of the black and white dualism (p. 110).

Despite the attention that Islamophobia has gained in the social sciences, a definition

continues to elude researchers. Arguments exist over attributing Islamophobia to xenophobia,

prejudice, phobia, or stereotype (Bleich, 2011; Elchardus & Spruyt, 2013; Kunst et al., 2012a).

This study embraces the definition offered by Kunst et al. (2012a). These researchers argue that

Islamophobia is an affective part of social stigma towards Islam and Muslims (p. 2) based in

fear. This definition was adapted from Gottsbalk and Greenberg (as cited in Kunst et al., 2012a),
 35

which argues that Islamophobia is a social anxiety towards Islam and Muslim cultures (p. 2).

This fear-based reaction to Muslims and Islam can occur at a personal and at a group level (i.e.,

majority group towards minority). Based on this argument, Islamophobia is the fear of Muslims

and Islam. The manner in which Islamophobia occurs (i.e., personal vs. group) has differing

impacts on the psychological well-being of the target person or population (Kunst et al., 2012a).

At the personal level, the experience of Islamophobia has been found to predict lower self-

esteem and in-group identity, while experiencing Islamophobia at the group level predicted

higher self-esteem and in-group identity.

Perceived Islamophobia

The study of Muslims perception of Islamophobia in society is a new development.

Studies have varied in the measurement and operationalization of the experience of Muslim

minorities in Western societies, with researchers utilizing ethnic discrimination to measure the

religion-based maltreatment (Ghaffari & ifti, 2010; Kunst et al., 2012a). One issue is that

ethnicity differs from religion (Verkuyten, 2007). The second issue is that discrimination is the

behavioral component of bias (Ghaffari & ifti, 2010), which does not align with the definition

of Islamophobia that this study has adopted. Gottsbalk and Greenberg (as cited in Kunst et al.,

2012a) argued that Islamophobia is a social anxiety towards Islam and Muslim cultures (p.

2). In order to advance the understanding of the perceptions of Muslim minorities living in

Western societies, this study focuses on perceived Islamophobia. Perceived Islamophobia is

defined as Muslim minorities own perception of islamophobia [at the group level] in their

societies of settlement (Kunst et al., 2012a). A common theme among the studies concerned

about the experience of Islamophobia and perceived Islamophobia is how it impacts societys

identification of the individual and the identify formation of the individual.

 36

The few studies concerned about the experience of Muslims in Western societies are

relatively new. Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015) explored the realities of Muslim men in the

UK through a three-year ethnographic study involving 48 working class Pakistani and

Bangladeshi men aged 16-21. The study focused on the reductive representations of Islam, the

Muslim community and being a young Muslim man (p. 98). Three themes emerged from the

study: change in British societys identification of the Muslim community, limitations of

collective identity and the term Islamophobia, and the impact of class. The first theme was

concerned about the experience of ones collective identity being changed to religious affiliation

(Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). The British society changed how it identified the Muslim

men. Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015) argued that the British Muslims men were previously

collectively identified as diverse ethnic group members, and were now limited to being

collectively identifying as one, homogenous religious group. This shift in collective identity has

impacted their self-perception and how society treated them. The young men felt misunderstood

due to conflicting representation of Muslim men as either positive (e.g., devotion to family and

work) or negative (e.g., terrorist), and struggled to identify with this dichotomous representation

(Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2012). The young men were conflicted by what it meant to be a

Muslim man due to the differences between their realities and the traditional perception of

Muslim men. The change in their collective identity resulted in the Muslim men experiencing

different treatment, such as intensified global surveillance, cultural pathologization and social

and racial exclusion (p. 101).

The second theme found by Mac and Ghaill and Haywood (2015) suggested that the

collective identity of Muslim missed the complex reality experienced by Muslim men in the UK.

Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015) found that the realities of these young men were impacted
 37

by multiple macro factors (e.g., world politics, global economy, increased intercultural

communications, migration changes, Western-led aggression on Muslim communities, and

changes in racial discrimination). These factors were not evident within the collective identity of

Muslim or by the term Islamophobia. The term Islamophobia was criticized as being

reductionistic among the Muslim respondents. In order to truly capture and comprehend the

reality of Muslims, Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015) suggested to focus on Muslims

differentiated experiences of discrimination and how they differ historically and geographically

across the interconnecting categories of generation, class, and gender (p. 106).

The third theme found by Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015) was the impact of class in

society on the Muslim mens reality. Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2015) found that the

increasing division in class in the Muslim community elicited anger towards how the community

is treated by the British society. It was found that media, government, academia, and

mainstream culture negatively portrayed the UK Muslim community based on religious

affiliation and misrepresentation of the classes within the Muslim community. Mac an Ghaill

and Haywood (2015) suggested that the portrayal of Muslims depicts the Muslim community

members as a feared religious group and as underclass. The majority group blames the Muslim

community for the hardships that is endure, and rationalizes that the Muslim communitys reality

is due to cultural deficits (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). Mac an Ghaill and Haywood

(2015) opposed this rationalization, arguing that the cultural and social systems within the UK

were detrimental to the Muslim community.

The impact of Islamophobia not only impacts lifelong Muslims, but has been found to

differ for Muslim converts. Moosavi (2015) conducted a qualitative study among British

Converts, a largely neglected group in research, in order to better understand the issues pertinent
 38

to UK Muslims. Moosavi (2015) interviewed 37 Muslim converts in the UK (27 respondents

were white, four were black, and six mixed race). The findings centralized around two themes:

the loss of whiteness experienced by white Muslim converts and Islamophobia. For the first part

of the study, Moosavi (2015) focused on the experiences of the white Muslim converts. This

was done because their experiences highlight the impact that Islamophobia has on their reality.

For white Muslim converts, research indicates that they experience a re-racialization as their

identity of being white is replaced by being identified as non-white or not-quite-white

(Moosavi, 2015, p. 44). Moosavi (2015) found support for this new identification among the

white UK Muslim converts, who shared instances of treated in derogatory, deeming,

exclusionary, and racially oriented manners by friends, family, and society members after they

converted. Moosavi (2015) found that the UK Muslim converts experienced instances when

members of the British society could not comprehend the dual identity of one being white and

Muslim.

The second theme found among the experiences of UK Muslim converts was

Islamophobia (Moosavi, 2015). Critics have argued that Islamophobia is not as prevalent in the

British society as it is depicted (Moosavi, 2015). Moosavi (2015) countered this perspective by

differentiating between covert and overt Islamophobia, arguing that covert Islamophobia is more

prevalent than overt Islamophobia. Moosavi (2015) argued that Islamophobia may be so

commonplace that it is hidden in the everyday lives of lifelong Muslims. Muslim converts, on

the other hand, would be more sensitive to covert Islamophobia. Muslim converts may perceive

and experience Islamophobia differently than lifelong Muslims because they once held a

different group identity, which now enabled them to see how the majority group perceives them

(e.g., double consciousness; Moosavi, 2015).

 39

Moosavi (2015) found evidence to support the argument that covert Islamophobia is more

prevalent than overt Islamophobia in British society. The UK Muslim converts were found to

fear pervasive Islamophobia while not personally experiencing Islamophobic acts on a regular

basis (Moosavi, 2015). This group of UK Muslim converts reported no experiences of physical

attacks or discrimination in the workplace or in receiving services, but were the targets of verbal

aggression (Moosavi, 2015). The magnitude of covert Islamophobia was demonstrated by the

UK Muslim converts families reactions towards their conversion. The conversion to Islam is

considered social suicide (p. 50), largely due to Western societies perception of Islam. The

UK Muslim converts were found to expect hostility from their family due to their conversion and

opted to either convert in secrecy or minimize their religion within the family context (Moosavi,

2015). The UK Muslim converts indicated that they were subjected to scrutiny from their

family, and were requested keep their new religious identity a secret. Moosavi (2015) found that

the family members rationalized this request with concern for what others may think. The UK

Muslim converts reported instances in which the visible markers of their religious identity was

ridiculed by family member and were requested to not wear the traditional clothing in public

(Moosavi, 2015). Common indicators of relatives disapproval of ones conversion to Islam took

the form of teasing and jokes with an Islamophobic basis, yet the jokes and teasing were excused

by the UK Muslim converts as being innocent in nature (Moosavi, 2015).

Group identification was found to be a common issue for Muslim minorities living in

Western societies. Islamophobia not only changed how the mainstream society identified the

religious group members, but also how Muslims identified themselves (Mac an Ghaill &

Haywood, 2015; Moosavi, 2015). The role of perceived Islamophobia on identity formation has

recently gained attention within research. Perceived Islamophobia was initially separated from
 40

other forms of discrimination and studied by Kunst et al. (2012b). Kunst et al. (2012b) focused

on how religious identity and religious stigma impacted the national identity and engagement of

Muslim minorities in Western society. Kunst et al. (2012b) separated religious stigma into three

constructs: perceived Islamophobia, negative representations in media, and religious

discrimination. Data were collected from 426 respondents contrived of 210 Norwegian-

Pakistanis and 216 German-Turks. The experienced religious discrimination was measured with

a perceived ethnic discrimination questionnaire. The perceived Islamophobia measure focused

on the degree to which respondents perceived the society and inhabitants of Norway or

Germany as [I]slamophobic (Kunst et al., 2012b, p. 523).

Kunst et al. (2012b) found that religious identity impacts national identification and

engagement, and is mediated by religious stigma. The results varied between the samples. The

differences observed between the German and Norwegian sample suggests the importance of

context. Kunst et al. (2012b) posited that the context is a crucial factor to how one deals with

multiple identities (e.g., religious and national identity). Religious stigma, consisting of

perceived Islamophobia, negative media portrayals, and religious discrimination, was found to

impact the two samples differently in national identity and engagement.

The Norwegian-Pakistani sample was found to have no conflict in identifying as

Muslim and Norwegian (Kunst et al., 2013b). Kunst et al. (2012b) suggested that this may be

due to the internalization of the secular values of Norway, enabling Muslim minorities to

separate their religious identity and their national identity. A negative relationship was found

between Norwegian-Pakistanis religious identity and the integration and engagement of

Norwegian culture within their private lives (Kunst et al., 2012b). For the Norwegian-Pakistani

respondents, perceived Islamophobia negatively predicted participants private national

 41

engagement (p. 527). Kunst et al. (2012b) suggested that those with high religious identity may

perceive a higher level of religious identity threat from the Norwegian society, therefore

decreasing their engagement in the national culture. In contrast, within the public sphere, the

Norwegian-Pakistani sample demonstrated no increase in religious identity and no decrease in

national identity in relation to perceived Islamophobia (Kunst et al., 2012b). Kunst et al. (2012b)

suggested that the sample may have seen minimal benefits to increasing an already high religious

group identity or due to the fear of being perceived as becoming radicalized. The Norwegian-

Pakistani group did not demonstrate an influence of perceived Islamophobia on national identity

(Kunst et al., 2012b).

For the Norwegian-Pakistani sample, negative media portrayal was the strongest

predictor of national affiliation (Kunst et al., 2012b). Contrary to the hypothesis, the negative

media portrayal had a direct positive effect on participants national identification and their

public and private national engagement (p. 527). Kunst et al. (2012b) provided two possible

explanations for this finding. The first possible explanation was that the negative portrayal of

Muslims may have prompted the Muslim viewers to question their national identity and to

actively portray themselves in a positive manner in order to improve their image (Kunst et al.,

2012b). The second possible explanation was that those with high national identity and

engagement may utilize media to inform themselves, resulting in their exposure to the negative

portrayal of Muslims (Kunst et al., 2012b). Religious discrimination was found to have no direct

or indirect effects. Kunst et al. (2012b) provided two possible explanations for this finding. The

first possible explanation was that the limited experience of or low severity of religious

discrimination was not perceived as identity threats (Kunst et al., 2012b). The second possible
 42

explanation was that religious discrimination may not have been perceived as reflective of a

societal issue, but rather as individuals attitudes (Kunst et al., 2012b).

The German-Turks findings were different than those of the Norwegian-Pakistani

sample (Kunst et al., 2012b). For German-Turks, religious identity had a negative effect on

national identification and engagement in public and private life (Kunst et al., 2012b). It was

found that one could not identify as Muslim and as German and engage in German culture.

Kunst et al. (2012b) suggested that this may be due to pressures to assimilate to German culture,

resulting in Muslims embracing their national identity over their religious identity. The German-

Turk respondents indicated no direct effect of perceived Islamophobia on religious identity,

national identity, or national engagement (Kunst et al., 2012b). Unexpectedly, perceived

Islamophobia was found to have positive indirect effects mediated by religious identity. Kunst et

al. (2012b) argued that the perceived Islamophobia in Germany may have influenced German-

Turks to believe that ones religious identity hindered his or her ability to be accepted in

Germany, resulting in a decrease of religious identity in order to be accepted.

Negative media representations of Muslims was found to be negatively related to national

identity and national engagement at the public and private level. Kunst et al. (2012b) suggested

that the negative media increased awareness of the German-Turk respondents collective

identity, resulting in an increased religious identity and lowered national identity and

engagement. Religious discrimination was the only religious stigma variable which had a direct

and several indirect negative effects for the German-Turk sample. Kunst et al. (2012b) argued

that this was due to the societal climate in Germany, resulting in the German-Turks attributing

discrimination to the societal level as opposed to the individual level. Religious discrimination
 43

was linked to a strengthening of religious identity and decreased in national identity and

engagement (Kunst et al., 2012b).

Kunst et al. (2012b) was the first study to distinguish perceived Islamophobia from other

forms of religious stigma. The scale used to measure perceived Islamophobia did not

demonstrated all required psychometric properties (Kunst et al., 2012a). To address the lack of

measurement tools that assess Muslim minorities perceptions of Islamophobia within their

societies, Kunst et al. (2012a) sought to create such a scale. Kunst et al. (2012a) conducted a

qualitative pilot study to establish the Perceived Islamophobia Scale (PIS; Appendix A) in a

manner that reflects Muslim perspective. The qualitative pilot study sought to understand how

Muslims define the typical [I]slamophobic person (p. 4). The two recurring themes from the

pilot study reflect Stephan et al.s (1999) integrated threat theory, which explores perceived

threat between groups. Perceived threat focuses on the perception of threat, whether the threat is

real or not, that one group holds against another group and may result to prejudice (Stephan et

al., 1999). The four factors of perceived threat are realistic threat, symbolic threat, intergroup

anxiety, and negative stereotyping.

The two themes that characterize the typical Islamophobia person were realistic threat

and symbolic threat (Kunst et al., 2012a). The first theme of the typical Islamophobic person

was the display of fear towards Muslims and Islam due to perceived danger, terror and

violence (p. 4). According to the integrated threat theory (Stephan et al., 1999), a realistic

threat is perceived to threaten the very existence of the in-group to the political and economic

power of the in-group, and threats to the physical and material well-being of the in-group (p.

2222). The second theme of the typical Islamophobic person is the demonstration of fear

towards Islam due to the religion being perceived as intolerant and incompatible with, or even
 44

as undermining, western values (Kunst et al., 2012a, p. 4). The integrated threat theory

(Stephan et al., 1999) suggests that this perceived threat is a symbolic threat, apprehension based

on the differences between the groups belief systems and culture which is perceived to threaten

the in-groups worldview. Kunst et al. (2012a) added a third factor indicated by a literature

review as perpetuating Islamophobia, media. Studies suggest that media exacerbates

Islamophobia due to its negative portrayals of Muslims and Islam (Kunst et al., 2012a). These

three findings make up the three subscales of the PIS: general fear of Islam and Muslims, fear of

Islamization, and Islamophobia in media. Kunst et al. (2012a) structured the PIS to measure

participants perceptions of [I]slamophobia in the form of fear towards Islam and Muslims

among the majority population (p. 4).

The PIS (Appendix A) was further developed through a Muslim sample consisting of 167

German-Arabs, 184 German-Turks, and 205 British-Pakistanis (Kunst et al., 2012a). The PIS

was compared to measures on psychological distress and perceived discrimination. Kunst et al.

(2012a) found that perceived Islamophobia predicted higher levels of psychological distress.

The PIS, including its three subscales, were found to positively correlate to the existing

perceived discrimination scale (Kunst et al., 2012a). It is suggested that perceived Islamophobia

may negatively impact psychological adaptation irrelevant to the personal experience of

discrimination (Kunst et al., 2012a).

A second study was conducted to validate the PIS among 262 German-Turks, 277

French-Maghrebi, and 249 British-Pakistani Muslims (Kunst et al., 2012a). Other measures

included perceived discrimination, perceived stress, religious identity, and ethnic identity. The

results suggested that the three-factor structure of the PIS is stable across different cultural

groups and societies (p. 10). The PIS was partially correlated with ethnic identity and religious
 45

identity across the samples. Kunst et al. (2012a) argued that this validates the PIS since the

findings support the rejection-identification model, which posits that in-group identification

among ethnic minorities will increase when faced with stigma. The findings suggest that

perceived Islamophobia has a greater impact on Muslims minorities identity than discrimination

(Kunst et al., 2012a). Perceived Islamophobia in media was found to be the most perceived

Islamophobia across samples (Kunst et al.., 2012a). Kunst et al. (2012a) argued that the UK

respondents perceived Islamophobia is greatly influenced by media, more so than the other

samples. Context was found to be a critical factor in perceived Islamophobia given the

difference across samples. The French-Maghrebi indicated the highest level of perceived

Islamophobia, followed by German-Turks, and the least amount of perceived Islamophobia were

indicated by the British-Pakistani.

Common themes across the research on the experience of Islamophobia and perceived

Islamophobia among Muslim minorities in Western societies were identity formation and

influence of national context. Muslim minorities in Western societies are challenged to form

their multiple identities in a manner that they feel appropriately integrates their faith and the

national context (Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015;

Moosavi, 2015). To better understand the interplay between perceived Islamophobia and

identity formation, research on intergroup conflict and identity are explored.

Religious Identity

Intergroup conflict and relations has been extensively researched in Cross-Cultural

Psychology (Segall et al., 1998) and Social Psychology (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Identity is an

important factor in intergroup relations due to its impact on sense of self, group affiliations,

structural positions, and ascribed and achieved statuses (Peek, 2005, p. 217). Religion is
 46

important to consider in intergroup relations due to how it establishes groups and identification

(Friedman & Saroglou, 2010). Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 2004; Verkuyten,

2007) allows for a better understanding of the observed increase in in-group religious identity

when personal and group level Islamophobia was perceived (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Kunst

et al., 2012; Peek, 2005; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). According to SIT, people with high

and low psychological commitment to their group (high and low indicators) can be expected to

differ in their reactions those with high in-group identification are more likely to show a

variety of group level responses relative to those shown by low identities (Verkuyten, 2007, p.

341). Verkuyten (2007) argued that group identification can be influenced by societal factors

and threats, which was observed by Peek (2005) and Chaudhury and Miller (2008) in regards to

Muslim identity formation. Given the Islamophobic context of Western societies, Verkuyten

(2007) argued that Islamic groups clearly face high levels of threat to the value of their religious

identity and the public condemnation of Islam and the plea for assimilation can lead to strong in-

group identification among these groups (p. 344).

Religion is receiving recognition in its importance for the study of culture and behavior.

Religious group identification has been largely neglected in research on social group identity

(Vekuyten, 2007), identity theory and research (Peek, 2005), and in Cross-Cultural Psychology

(Tarakeshwar et al., 2003), yet is being recognized as a crucial factor to understand intergroup

conflict, culture, and behavior. The need for this research is further exacerbated by religious

diversity being increasingly questioned in Western societies as immigration and multiculturalism

are criticized (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Religion has been found to be an important

factor for immigrants, as they may turn to religion to deal with the stressors, provides

frameworks to comprehend what occurs in ones life, and influences ones adaptation (Ghaffari
 47

& ifti, 2010; Peek, 2005). The importance of studying religious identity is supported by the

argument that religion is inextricably woven into the cloth of cultural life (Tarakeshwar et al.,

2003, p. 377) and is evident at the group, institutional, and cultural level of societies. Verkuyten

and Martinovic (2012) postulated that religion is often of profound importance to peoples lives

and religious groups are among the more salient buttresses of identity (p. 1165).

Qualitative studies have been conducted among Muslim adolescents and young adults to

better understand the development of Muslim religious identity. The study of religious identity

formation among Muslim minorities is minimal yet necessary due to vastness of Islam and the

current sociopolitical environment of Western societies (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Peek, 2005).

Peek (2005) desired to better understand why and how religion has become the most salient

source of personal and social identity (p. 220). Religious identity formation was explored

among 127 young adult second-generation Muslim Americans and was found to occur in three

stages: religious as ascribed identity, religion as chosen identity, and religion as declared identity

(Peek, 2005). The progression through these three stages results in stronger religious devotion,

increased religious practice, and stronger religious identification. Religion as ascribed identity is

typical during the early, formative years of religious identity development, characterized by

unquestioning religious practice, concrete conceptualization, and limited understanding about the

religion (Peek, 2005). The respondents felt varying levels of pressure to assimilate to the US

culture during this phase, which was dependent on the diversity of where they lived (e.g., urban

versus rural areas), and also felt stigmatized. During this stage, some respondents chose to hide

their religious affiliation in order to be a part of the majority group (Peek, 2005).

The second stage of Muslim religious identity formation found by Peek (2005) was

religion as a chosen identity. It is during this stage that respondents reported a critical
 48

perspective towards religion and actively chose to make their religious identity their prominent

identifier (Peek, 2005). This stage is characterized by increased awareness, introspection, and

maturation as the person becomes more aware of influences outside of their immediate

environment (e.g., college and new peer groups). Peek (2005) found that when the young

Muslim Americans interacted with more members of their religious in-group, their ability to

identify as Muslim improved as their peer relations buffered against pressures to assimilate.

Some respondents choose to strongly identify as Muslim in order to denounce identities

perceived as un-Islamic (e.g., ethnic, national, or cultural; p. 229).

The third stage of Muslim religious identity formation that Peek (2005) found was

religion as declared identity. This stage of religious identity formation was the response to a

crisis, specifically September 11, 2001, which resulted in increased fear towards Muslims and

Arabs and those perceived to be Muslim and Arab (e.g., Sikhs, South Asian, and those who

appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent). Many of the respondents maintained their public

display of their religious affiliation while several strengthened their religious identity as negative

portrayals and perceptions of Muslims increased among non-Muslims (Peek, 2005). The

respondents religious identity strengthened as they increased their practice of the religion, their

reliance on God, and their knowledge of Islam. The respondents felt compelled to educate others

on Islam in order to deter the negative perceptions held against Islam, which resulted in an

increase in studying the religion (Peek, 2005). They actively sought to be a positive

representation of the religious group towards non-Muslims. Solidarity among Muslim

Americans increased and religious identity strengthened as a result of the discrimination and

perceived discrimination following September 11, 2001 (Peek, 2005). Those in the religion as
 49

declared identity stage condemned assimilation pressure to choose between being American or

Muslim and ultimately chose being Muslim.

The role of social factors and multiple identities were further examined in relation to

religious identity formation. A qualitative study by Chaudhury and Miller (2008) sought to

understand the integration of religious and host nation beliefs during the development of

religious identity and to understand what factors supported and hindered the development of

religious identity. The study explored the experiences of 16 Bangladeshi American Sunni

Muslim adolescents (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). The findings suggest that the adolescents had

to balance their multiple identities and influences as they developed their personal religious

identity (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). At a young age, the respondents were introduced to

practices and beliefs from their families and at religious schools or mosques. Religious identity

formation started in preadolescence as the respondents sought to understand the religion and

integrate its teachings into their own belief systems. Critical analysis of the religion occurred as

the respondents religious and ethnic ideals were challenged by the ideals of the US mainstream

culture (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008).

The second aim of Chaudhury and Miller (2008) was to understand the influential factors

during religious identity formation. The factors that contributed toward religious identity

formation were: cultural and generation gap, alternative belief systems, seeking deeper

understands of Islamic practices, and environments (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). The cultural

and generation gap that the youth grew up in was characterized by a parental unit with limited

ability to relate to what the youth were experiencing. The US context and culture was unfamiliar

to the parental unit, resulting in the youth not seeking parental guidance on issues that were

pertinent to them. The exposure to alternative belief systems occurred through friends or
 50

personal interest (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). The learning of other belief systems, whether

religious or cultural, stimulated reflection upon ones own religious beliefs, resulting in the

strengthening of ones religious identity. The desire for a deeper understanding of Islam was

rooted in the critical analysis of the religion (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). The youth sought to

understand why Islam was the way it was, either within the religion or outside the religion, and

challenged perceived conflicting or confusing aspects of the religion. The personally developed

perception of Islam that is integrated into ones religious identity is reflective of cultural and

sociopolitical factors (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). An environment that did not allow one to

feel safe in demonstrating his or her religious affiliation (e.g., school system with small Muslim

populations) was found to hinder religious identity formation (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008).

The second set of factors facilitated the process of religious identity formation

(Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). The facilitating factors were: open communication with family and

loved ones, support network of peers, safe havens, significance of prayer, and the now versus

then phenomenon. Religious identity formation was found to be an ongoing process, which

naturally wavers over time, and enables one to develop a personal religious belief system

(Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). Open exploration and discussion with family members and loved

ones was found to be the most crucial factor in religious identity formation. Those who did not

have the open communication were found to have hindered religious identity development

compared to those who had the open communication (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). Support and

acceptance was crucial for the youth, whether through peers or safe havens (e.g., clubs and

organizations; Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). These social groups allowed for religious discussion

while providing acceptance and safe places to engage in religious practices.

 51

Prayer is one of the five basic pillars of Islam, and during religious identity formation, it

was found that youth may question the reasoning of prayer and develop rationale as to why he or

she should engage in the practice (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). Prayer was found to be a

common theme in the maintenance of the youths religious identity. The final factor that

facilitates religious identity formation was the now versus later phenomenon. It was found that

youth either engage in the religious practice and beliefs in the present or delay adherence until

older (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). Those who engage in the present differ in how they develop

their religious beliefs compared to those delaying adherence (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008).

Drinking and dating (acceptable for Western youth but not within Islamic culture) were found to

be common factors in this decision making process (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008).

The strength of Muslim religious identity among Muslim immigrants in Western societies

was explored in relation to the interaction between ones multiple, and potentially conflicting,

identities. Verkuyten (2007) studied national identity and religious identity among 206 Turkish-

Dutch Sunni Muslims. The measurement tool utilized to assess Muslim group identification was

adapted from ethnic identification items and focused on ones level of belongingness and

attachment to the religious group. Verkuyten (2007) found that the religious identity was very

important for the majority of the sample. Verkuyten (2007) provided three potential

explanations. One explanation was that the sample may not believe there was an option of

religious identity or that the strength of religious identity was not a factor. The second

explanation for the level of religious identity was that the increased global tensions and

divergences between the Western and Islamic world may also force Turkish-Dutch Muslims to a

position of having to defend and stress their religion (p. 351). The third explanation was that

monotheistic religions, especially Islam, typically have strong religious identities. Verkuyten
 52

(2007) found that those with high Muslim identity were not connected to a low national identity

despite the difference between the Dutch society and Muslim culture. This indicated that those

with a strong religious identity may also feel connected to the nation.

The relationship between discrimination and religious identity among Muslim minority

groups in Western societies is important to explore due to the prevalence of Islamophobia.

Religious affiliation has been found to predict discrimination (Awad, 2010). The experience of

discrimination was examined in terms of ethnic identity, acculturation, and religious affiliation

among Arab Americans (Awad, 2010). The studys sample consisted of 177 Arab

American/Middle Eastern American participants across the United States (45% Christian, 42%

Muslim, and 10% did not respond). Religious affiliation was found to be the strongest predictor

of experiencing discrimination, with Muslims experiencing a higher amount of discrimination

than Christians. The interaction of religious affiliation and acculturation level was evident in this

finding. While no difference was found between religious groups when both had limited

immersion into the dominant society, Muslims with a high level of immersion in the dominant

society experienced more discrimination compared to Christians with a high level of immersion

in the dominant society. The highly acculturated Muslim group was found to have the highest

level of perceived discrimination, suggesting that the adaptation to the new culture did not

protect Muslim Arab Americans from discrimination.

Ghaffari and ifti (2010) studied the relationships between perceived discrimination,

religiosity, and self-esteem among 225 Muslim American immigrants. Religiosity was assessed

via attitudinal and behavioral measures of religious adherence while perceived discrimination

was assessed via an ethnic discrimination scale. Ghaffari & ifti (2010) found that perceived

discrimination moderates the relationship between attitudinal religiosity and self-esteem and the
 53

relationship between behavioral religiosity and self-esteem. Ghaffari & ifti (2010) suggested

that the self-esteem of religious individuals is lowered when they perceive discrimination. A

significant relationship was found between perceived discrimination and both measures of

religiosity (e.g., behavioral and attitudinal; Ghaffari & ifti, 2010). Ghaffari & ifti (2010)

suggested that Muslims who perceived discrimination strengthened their religious identity (e.g.,

through engagement in practices and beliefs) in order to deal with the perceive discrimination.

Ghaffari and ifti (2010) argued that the perceived discrimination acted as an antecedent to the

increase in religiosity. Muslim immigrant men were found to display higher levels of religiosity,

including engaging in more religious activities, compared to Muslim immigrant women

(Ghaffari & ifti, 2010). Ghaffari & ifti (2010) argued that this was due to the different

manners in which genders engage in Islam, with men taking a social approach to religious

practice (e.g., attending the mosque, congregate with others for prayer) while women engage in

private adherence to the religion and may opt to not publicly display their religion through

religious attire while in public due to fear of discrimination.

The impact of discrimination and perceived discrimination and religious identity is of

importance to better understand intergroup relations between the majority group and Muslim

minority group (Friedman & Saroglou, 2010; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Verkuyten and

Martinovic (2012) conducted a three part study to understand the relationship between ethnic

identity, religious identity, and national identity among three samples (N = 131, 204, 249) of

Dutch Sunni Muslims. The findings suggest that Muslim immigrants who identify strongly

with their ethnic and religious ingroups tend to distance themselves more from the host society

than immigrants with a more complex identity structure (p. 1174). Verkuyten and Martinovic

(2012) link this finding to the impact of the national context and perceived discrimination within
 54

the host society. In comparing the results between the three studies, the researchers argued that

the higher level of religious identity observed in a sample indicates more traditional adherence to

Islam, suggesting a lower national identity.

The importance of context is demonstrated by Sirin et al. (2008) findings not being

reflective of the findings of other studies (e.g., Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Even though the

study did not compare between nations, it does show that Muslim identification may vary in the

US. Sirin et al. (2008) studied the relationship between national identity, religious identity, and

discrimination among 97 US Muslim young adults. Sirin et al. (2008) measured identity,

acculturation practices, religiosity, frequency of discrimination, and stress related to

discrimination. Muslim and American identities were measured by a scale which assesses how

one perceives their group membership and through identity maps. Discrimination was measured

in regards to frequency and location and specified that it was due to religious affiliation.

Religiosity was measurement without a standardized form, and assessed engagement in religious

practices and reliance on religion.

Sirin et al. (2008) found that the US Muslim young adults Muslim identity and

American identity were compatible. The respondents identified more strongly with their

religious identity compared to their American identity, but a positive relationship was found

between religious identity and national identity among the US Muslim young adults (Sirin et al.,

2008). The findings suggest that religious identity and national identity are shaped by different

factors. Sirin et al. (2008) found that religious identity was largely impacted by religiosity,

national identity was negatively impacted by stress from discrimination, positively by US

orientation, and negatively by home orientation. Discrimination was not found to change

religious identity but negatively impacted national identity. Sirin et al. (2008) found differences
 55

between how the gender influences religious identity and national identity. Women were more

likely to integrate their religious identity and national identity while men were more likely to

have parallel religious identity and national identity.

An analysis between the experiences of stigmatized and nonstigmatized religious

immigrant groups in the same country may allow for a better understanding of the impact of

religious affiliation on acculturation experiences. Friedman and Saroglou (2010) studied

religiosity and acculturation among 273 Muslims and 155 non-Muslims in Belgium. Religiosity

was assessed by the level of engagement in religion based on personal and spiritual reasons.

Other measures included perceived distance from the host culture, perceived religious tolerance,

and feelings of anger towards the host country. Differences were found between the stigmatized

and nonstigmatized religious groups. The Muslim respondents indicated a lower perception of

tolerance in regards to their religion from the host country compared to the non-Muslim

respondents (Friedman & Saroglou, 2010). As anticipated, the Muslim respondents rated higher

in self-esteem and lower in depression compared to the non-Muslims. No difference was found

between the Muslims and non-Muslims acculturation towards Belgium culture. Friedman and

Saroglou (2010) found that religiosity was indirectly related to reduced acculturation and

mediated by the perceived cultural gap. For the Muslim respondents, religiosity was related to

decreased self-esteem and increased depressive symptoms and mediated by perceived tolerance

of religion and feelings of anger towards the host country (Friedman & Saroglou, 2010).

Religious identity formation was found to be impacted by pressures to assimilate,

perceived and experienced discrimination, and availability of in-group members by Peek (2005)

and Chaudhury and Miller (2008). Religious affiliation was found to predict discrimination

(Awad, 2010) which is influential on group identification (Friedman & Saroglou, 2010;
 56

Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). The strengthening of religious identity when faced by

discrimination or perceived discrimination reflects the argument that in-group identity will

strengthen when one perceives group level Islamophobia by SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 2004;

Verkuyten, 2007). However, SIT recognizes the impact of context on identity formation, which

is demonstrated by US Muslim young adults religious identity and national identity being

positively correlated (Sirin et al., 2008) while Dutch Sunni Muslims experiencing discrimination

display strong ethnic and religious identities and separation from the host country (Verkuyten &

Martinovic, 2012).

This study strives to tease apart the social group identities by focusing on religious

identity due to the religion-based fear that is perceived by Muslims in Western societies. The

varying manner in which religious identity is operationalized creates challenges in interpreting

results (Abu-Rayya et al., 2009; Ghorbani, Watson, & Khan, 2007; Verkuyten, 2007).

Verkuyten (2007) argued that the study of religious group identification needs to include

multidimensional aspects of religion, including behaviors and practices as opposed to being

limited to religious affiliation. In order to define religious identity in a manner that is applicable

to the Muslim population, this study sought out theories and measures developed within the

Muslim population that also represents religious identity in a multidimensional manner.

There is potential limited applicability of Western-based theories and measurement tools

of religious identity to Muslim populations. An indigenous psychology was proposed to

understand the Muslim psychology of religion by Ghorbani et al. (2007). Ghorbani et al. (2007)

argued that Western-based theories on religion and mental health may not be applicable to Islam,

necessitating the development of a Muslim theoretical perspective on religious orientation.

Ghorbani et al. (2007) argued that Islam has three types of religious commitment: utilitarian
 57

religiousness, gnostic religiousness, and experiential religiousness. These types of religious

commitments are similar to those in Western research (i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest), yet

still differ (Ghorbani et al., 2007). One engages in utilitarian religiousness to enable one to

achieve a desired goal, believing that the adhering to and demonstration of the traditions and

customs will allow one to achieve an objective. A person demonstrates gnostic religiousness

when one desires to comprehend the mystery of God. An individual displays experiential

religiousness to be as close as possible to God. The difference between Western-based religious

theory and Muslim oriented theory suggests that the manner in which religious identity is

measured among Muslims is important to consider.

Limited applicability of Western theorization of religion is compounded by disagreement

on the operationalization of religious identity. Abu-Rayya et al. (2009) found contrasting

approaches used to study religious identity. Abu-Rayya et al. (2009) argued that research is

divided between a unidimensional and a multidimensional manner in assessing ones religious

identity. The factors that are typically assessed are beliefs, practices, attitudes, orientation,

commitment, experience, and development. The difference between the approaches is in how

the factors are studies. The unidimensional form of study focuses on the individual elements

separately (Abu-Rayya et al., 2009). This may miss the complexity and relationship between the

factors. In contrast, the multidimensional perspective is done two different ways, either focusing

on an individual factor within context or studying a combination of multiple factors (Abu-Rayya

et al., 2009).

Abu-Rayya et al. (2009) posited two concerns about the current body of literature on the

psychology of religion. The first concern was that the research was limited in comparability due

to the different approaches utilized by the researchers. Second, the studies were limited in
 58

generalizability and applicability due to focus on the Christian religion. Abu-Rayya et al. (2009)

argued that the manner in which the measurement tools were constructed may not be applicable

to diverse religious groups or to those who do not ascribe to a religious group. Abu-Rayya et al.

(2009) found that religious measures do not differentiate between religiosity and religious

identity.

To counter this, Abu-Rayya et al. (2009) proposed a social developmental perspective on

religious identity that consists of three universal dimensions: religious affirmation and belonging,

religious identity achievement, and religious faith and practices. The religious affirmation and

belonging dimension is concerned about a persons perception of and social integration into the

religion. The religious identity achievement dimension focuses on the level of devotion and

examination of the religion. The religious faith and practices dimension assesses engagement in

religious practices and emotional response to the major aspects common to religions (e.g., God,

prayer, and place of worship).

Religious identity has been found to be impacted by various factors, including stigma,

discrimination, acculturation, and other identities that one holds. The relationship between

identity threat and religious identity was been demonstrated as vital in understanding intergroup

relations between Western societies and Muslim minorities (Friedman & Saroglou, 2010; Sirin et

al., 2008, Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Research on religious identity has been criticized as

being unidimensional, poorly defined, and based in Western culture (Abu-Rayya et al., 2009;

Ghorbani et al., 2007; Verkuyten, 2007). This study embraces Abu-Rayya et al.s (2009)

definition of religious identity, and defines religious identity as a social group identity

encompassing multidimensional factors of religiousness, including ones perception of group

 59

belongingness, devotion and commitment to the religion, and engagement in religious activities

and practices.

Summary

This study desires to understand the interaction between nation, perceived Islamophobia,

and religious identity among Muslim minorities in Western societies. Despite the

internationalization of religious freedom, Islamophobia, the fear or Islam and Muslims, is

increasing in Western societies. Common themes in research exploring the experience and

perceptions of Muslim minorities living in Western societies have indicated that Islamophobia

challenges their identity formation, including their collective identity and their self-identity.

Religious identity has been found to interact with ethnic identity and national identity, and the

manner in which these multiple identities are adhered to may change when faced with an identity

threat. This in turn may influence how Muslim minorities perceive and engage within their

national context.
 60

Chapter 3: Research Design and Method

Chapter Overview

This quantitative study sought to understand the experiences and perceptions of Muslim

minorities living in Western societies. It focused on the relationship between nation, perceived

Islamophobia, and religious identity. For this study, Islamophobia was defined as a social

anxiety towards Islam and Muslim cultures (Gottschalk & Greenberg, as cited in Kunst el al.,

2012a, p. 2). Perceived Islamophobia, in turn, was defined as Muslim minorities own

perception of islamophobia [at the group level] in their societies of settlement (Kunst et al.,

2012a). The social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 2004; Verkuyten, 2007) suggests that

those who experience identity threat will strengthen their in-group identity yet recognizes that

the national context may impact this behavior. SIT suggests that there may be differences in

how perceived Islamophobia influences religious identity in the US and the UK. The problem

that this study aimed to address was the rise in Islamophobia and the limited culturally-sensitive

empirical research in psychology developed from perspectives of Muslim samples in different

nations (Amer & Bagasra, 2013).

This study embraced the Cross-Cultural Psychology approach to culture and behavior by

perceiving the variables as separable and as influencing one another (Greenfield, 2000; Segall et

al., 1998; Sinha, 2002). There were two purposes of this study. The first was to determine the

effect of nation on perceived Islamophobia and religious identity. This was based on findings

that demonstrate that national context may influence how ones religious identity is impacted by

identity threat (e.g., perceived Islamophobia; Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al, 2012b). The

second purpose was to determine the relationship between perceived Islamophobia and religious

identity among Muslims in the US and the UK. Research suggests that one will strengthen his or
 61

her religious identity when faced with an identity threat (e.g., perceived Islamophobia;

Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).

This chapter elaborates on the research design and method of this study. The research

questions and hypotheses are detailed, followed by an exploration of the research design, and the

population and sample. The procedures section explains the manner in which participants were

recruited and how the data were collected. The instruments are discussed along with the data

processing. This chapter concludes by considering assumptions and ethical assurances.

Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Rationales

This study was based on two research questions. The first research question was: Is there

a statistically significant difference of perceived Islamophobia and religious identity between

Muslims in the US and the UK? It was hypothesized that there would be a statistically

significant effect of nation on perceived Islamophobia and religious identity. This hypothesis

was based on research suggesting that national context influences how ones religious identity is

impacted when faced with an identity threat (e.g., perceived Islamophobia; Chaudhury & Miller,

2008; Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b; Peek, 2005; Sirin et al., 2008; Verkuyten, 2007;

Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).

The second research question was: What is the relationship between perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity? This question considered the entire sample as opposed to

separating based on nation. It was hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant

relationship between perceived Islamophobia and religious identity. Research suggests that one

will strengthen his or her religious identity when faced with an identity threat (e.g., perceived

Islamophobia; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).

 62

Research Design

This study followed Cross-Cultural Psychologys application of valid and reliable

procedures to study other cultures (Greenfield, 2008). A true cultural-comparison was not able

to be conducted due to the data representing US Muslims more than UK Muslims. This

exploratory study used quantitative approaches to research the interaction between nation,

perceived Islamophobia, and religious identity. This study was exploratory due to the vastness

of the phenomenon and the limited understanding of perceived Islamophobia and religious

identity evidenced in research (Babbie, 2010; Bleich, 2011). An exploratory study was

conducted to advance limited knowledge on the topic and promote the success of future studies.

This exploratory study was designed to improve the understanding of this complex phenomenon

due to the vast, interrelated variables that are difficult for researchers to tease apart (Babbie,

2010). Quantitative methods were utilized due to limited empirical studies, limited generalizable

findings for this population (Amer & Bagasra, 2013), and the limited resources to conduct a

dissertation (i.e., time, finances, and connections in the community; Babbie, 2010). The data

collection was completed in an online format to maintain anonymity, access participants from

two different nations, and mitigate cost and travel restraints.

This quantitative study comprised of a quasi experimental portion and a correlational

portion. The quasi experimental portion explored the impact of nation on perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity using a between-subjects design (Babbie, 2010). This was a

quasi experiment since nation and religious affiliation are subject variables and cannot be

manipulated (Jackson, 2011). This section did not have a control group, random assignment, nor

pre- and posttesting (Babbie, 2010). The correlational portion explored the relationship between
 63

two dependent variables and indicates predictor variables of perceived Islamophobia, which can

be used to influence future research (Babbie, 2010).

Population and Sample

The unit of analysis for this study were individual people. This was because this study

desired to understand how different groups of individuals behave as individuals (Babbie, 2010,

p. 98) in regards to how one responds to identity threats. The US and the UK were selected after

a Google search revealed that these two countries had the most Muslim support organizations,

which may act as gateway organizations to the Muslim communities, compared to other Western

societies. The eligibility criteria to participate in this study included: self-report as Muslim,

reside in the US or UK, and be a legal adult (18 and over in both countries). The sample

required access to the Internet, be of the socioeconomic and educational level to use the

computer/Internet, and be able to read and comprehend English.

The desire of the study was to gain a heterogeneous sample due to previous research,

media, governmental officials, and the general populace perceiving Muslims as a homogenous

group (Amer & Bagasra, 2013; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015). According to Amer and

Bagasra (2013), current research in the US based on a Muslim sample accessed participants

through mosques, Islamic cultural centers, Islamic schools, Muslim student associations, and

Islamic conferences (p. 137). This potentially deters the generalizability due to the participants

possibly having stronger religious identity or ethnic identity compared to Muslims who do are

not involved in those types of organizations. Research does not accurately represent the Muslim

community in regards to socioeconomic status, education, conversion, and language (Amer &

Bagasra, 2013). Internet data collection has been found to acquire a heterogeneous sample, such

as those who are less religious (Amer & Bagasra, 2013). The sample for this study was accessed
 64

through gateway organizations that combat Islamophobia. To lessen the narrowing of the sample

to those who interact with the website, the snowball sampling technique was utilized.

A power analysis was conducted to determine the sample size required to conduct the

appropriate statistical tests to answer the research questions. Since the research questions

required different statistical analysis procedures, the sample size varied for the two portions of

the study. For the first research question, the power analysis indicated that a total of 252

participants were needed to detect small effects ( 2 = 0.06) with 95% power using MANOVA.

For the second research question, the power analysis indicated that 111 participants were needed

to detect medium effects (= .3) with 95% power using Pearsons r.

This study utilized the purposive sampling technique. This technique is a variation of

nonprobability sampling when the participants are selected based on who will be the most

representative of the population in question (Babbie, 2010). This technique was the most

feasible due to the limited tracking of Muslims around the world, hesitation for the population to

engage in research, accessibility to the population, and limited resources (Amer & Bagasra,

2013; Mohammadi, Jones, & Evans, 2008; Moosavi, 2015). I contacted various organizations in

the US and UK that promoted social justice and combatted Islamophobia. Despite my efforts for

several months, I was not able to get a response from UK-based organizations. Four

organizations agreed to partake in assisting with the study. The sample was accessed through the

following gateway organizations: Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim

American Society Public Affairs and Civic Engagement (MAS-PACE), Islamic Society of

North America (ISNA), and Grieboski Global Strategies. The organizations websites,

distribution email lists, and social media were used to distribute the link of the online survey.

This study utilized a social networking approach (i.e., snowball sampling technique) that
 65

requested the participants to share the link with two others who met the study requirements

(Amer & Bagasra, 2013).

Procedures

To conduct this study, it was critical to develop a relationship with the Muslim

community. I initiated this process by interning at the American Islamic College (AIC) in

Chicago, Illinois and was involved in scholastic and community events that supported interfaith

relations. It was through this experience that I was able interact with a social justice organization

and start developing relationships through contacts and networking. The sample was accessed

through gateway organizations that focus on social justice, advocacy, and religious freedom:

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim American Society Public Affairs and

Civic Engagement (MAS-PACE), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Grieboski

Global Strategies. I collaborated with my contacts of these organizations on the structure of the

survey, the manner in which it was written, and how to distribute the online survey. The

websites of these organizations, which are resources for those who experience Islamophobia,

displayed the link to the online survey, and the organizations distributed the link through

distribution lists and social media sites. This study utilized the social networking approach that

Amer and Bagasra (2013) recommended in reaching the Muslim community, snowball sampling

technique, by requesting that respondents ask two other individuals who met the eligibility

criteria to take the survey.

The participants were requested to complete an online survey that took up to 20 minutes.

This study utilized an online survey tool, SurveyMonkey, to create a survey contrived of a

demographics questionnaire, the Perceived Islamophobia Scale (PIS; Appendix A; Kunst et al.,

2012a), and the Multi-Religion Identity Measurement (MRIM; Abu-Rayya et al., 2009). The
 66

informed consent at the beginning of the survey explained that by entering the survey that the

participants agreed to the terms of the study, resulting in identifiers not being required (e.g.,

signature or initials; Amer & Bagasra, 2013). The participants were provided the researchers

contact information for any questions and the findings will be distributed to the community

through the organizations.

Instrumentation

The data were collected through an online survey utilizing the PIS (Appendix A; Kunst et

al., 2012a), the MRIM (Abu-Rayya et al., 2009), and a demographic questionnaire. Discussion

of both instruments psychotropic properties can be found in the limitations section of chapter 5.

The demographic questionnaire requested information on gender, age, perceived economic status

of country, education level, religious sect, amount of years in country, and religious conversion.

The PIS (Appendix A) was chosen for this study due it being the only structured

assessment tool measuring Muslim minorities perception of group level Islamophobia within

their settler society and its application across countries (Kunst et al., 2012a). The PIS was

created due to the lack of measurement tools that assess how Muslim minorities perceive

Islamophobia in their settlement country. This valid and reliable measurement tool is a 12 item

6-point Likert scale that is contrived of three subscales (e.g., general fear of Islam and Muslims,

fear of islamization, and Islamophobia in media). The scale was developed from a sample of 167

German-Arabs, 184 German-Turks, and 205 British-Pakistanis. The reliability coefficients were

found to be .85 for the German-Arab sample, .83 for the German-Turk sample, and .92 for the

British-Pakistani sample. The PIS was validated with a sample consisting of 262 German-Turks,

277 French-Maghrebi, and 249 British-Pakistani. The reliability coefficients of the cumulative

score were .90 for German-Turks, .89 for French-Maghrebis, and .92 for British-Pakistani.
 67

The MRIM (Abu-Rayya et al., 2009) was selected for this study because it is based in

non-Western perspectives, is not based on Christianity, embraces the multidimensional reality of

religious identity, and measures religious identity across religious groups. This valid and reliable

measurement tool is a 15 item 8-point Likert scale with three subscales (e.g., religious

affirmation and belonging, religious identity achievement, and religious faith and practices). The

validity of the MRIM was tested with a sample of 257 Palestinian Muslims high school students,

263 Muslim college students in Israel, 200 Christian high school students in Israel, and 134

Christian college students in Israel. The reliability coefficient for the cumulative score was .83

for the high school sample and .89 for the college sample.

Data Processing

The data collected in this study were analyzed using the SPSS Statistics software. The

demographic variables were gender, age, perceived economic status of country, education level,

religious sect, years in country, and religious conversion.

Inferential statistical analyses were conducted to these the two hypotheses. The first

hypothesis was that there would be a statistically significant effect of nation on perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity. There was one independent variable (i.e., participants

nation) and two dependent variables (i.e., perceived Islamophobia and religious identity). The

original conceptualization of this study determined that the MANOVA was appropriate (Brace,

Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013). However, the MANOVA could not be used due to the dependent

variables not being related. This necessitated the use of two independent t-tests, with one on the

impact of nation on perceived Islamophobia and the second on the impact of nation on religious

identity (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013). The independent t-test was appropriate to analyze the
 68

dependent variables (religious identity and perceived Islamophobia) to the two groups of the

independent variable (nation: US vs UK; Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013).

The second part of this study is a correlation study which analyzed the entire data set as

one. It was hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant relationship between

perceived Islamophobia and religious identity. The variables perceived Islamophobia and

religious identity were analyzed by using Pearsons r (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013). The

purpose of conducting a correlation study is to determine the degree of relationship between the

two variables with focus on the strength and direction of that relationship (Babbie, 2010). The

Pearsons r was appropriate due to the linear relationship between the variables and the scale of

measurement being at least interval (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013). The significant level used

in this test was 0.05. Predictor variables of perceived Islamophobia were found through a

multiple regression (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013).

Assumptions

The assumptions of this study involve the sample and the methodology. It was assumed

that those who completed the online survey were who they said they were, participated willingly,

and completed the surveys honestly. It was assumed that this research design and methodology

were the best way to answer the research questions. It was assumed that the identity variables

could be separated from other identities, such as gender, ethnicity, or nationality. It was assumed

that the chosen measurement tools were appropriate to measure the variables.

Ethical Assurances

To ensure that ethical practices were adhered to, this study followed the national

regulations posed by the US and the UK. The US protects participants engaging in research

through the Common Rule and subparts B-E, which protect vulnerable populations (e.g..,
 69

pregnant women, human fetuses, and neonates; prisoners; and children), and established the

Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

2012). Researchers are required to respect individuals, balance risk and benefit, and support

justice (NIH, 2014). Researchers must use informed consents, provide extra supports for

vulnerable populations, ensure minimal risk, and structure the study to decrease coercion and

allow for equal opportunity to engage in the study.

The UK is similar in its requirements for studies using human subjects. According to the

Department of Health (2005), the following requirements are pertinent to this study: protect the

dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of participants; use informed consent; appropriate use and

protection of data; relevant service users be involved in creation, implementation and

dissemination of study; specific expectations are delineated for the different roles in research

(i.e., participant, organization, and researcher); risks are proportional to benefits; and

independent review of study may be needed.

This study was structured in a manner to observe the ethical requirements of both

countries. It was processed by an IRB in the US to ensure ethics and minimal risk. Since the

survey was via online, no further international approval was needed. The participants were adult

age and had equal opportunity to take the study via an online survey. I established collaborative

relationships with four gateway organizations, delineated expectations in writing, and received

letters of support to secure the relationship. The gatekeeper organizations were encouraged to

partake in the creation, implementation, and dissemination of the study. A detailed and

transparent informed consent was at the beginning of the study which mandated agreement from

the participant without collecting identifiers. Deception was not used. The participants were

able to stop the survey at any time. The participants were provided the contact information of
 70

the researcher if they had any questions or concerns. Due to the online survey method,

participants were anonymous. The data were stored in a personal computer that is only used by

the researcher and will be disposed of within a few years after analysis (up to five). The findings

will be provided back to the community. This study does not impact pregnancies or

fetuses/neonates and does not focus on prisoners. The surveys will take approximately twenty

minutes and compensation will not be given.

Summary

This qualitative study desires to understand the interaction between nation, perceived

Islamophobia, and religious identity. It was structured in a manner consistent with Cross-

Cultural Psychology, in that culture and behavior are seen as separable and established

procedures were utilized to study another culture. Despite efforts to conduct a cross-cultural

comparison, the collected data did not allow for a comparison between the UK and the US since

the data largely represented the US Muslim population. Due to this, the data were treated as one

sample in order to understand the relationship between perceived Islamophobia and religious

identity and determine predictor variables for perceived Islamophobia.

 71

Chapter 4: Findings

Introduction

This quantitative study explores the interaction between nation, perceived Islamophobia,

and religious identity among Muslims in Western societies. Due to the rise in Islamophobia in

recent history, this study focuses on Muslims residing in the US and in the UK and how

perceived Islamophobia impacts Muslim minorities identity formation. The two purposes of

this study were as follows: determine the effect of nation on perceived Islamophobia and

religious identity and determine the relationship between perceived Islamophobia and religious

identity among Muslims in the US and the UK. These purposes were grounded in theoretical

research concerning intergroup relations and how national context, influences ones identity

when faced with an identity threat (Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012; Tajfel & Turner,

2004; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). An online survey consisted of a

demographics questionnaire, the Perceived Islamophobia Scale (PIS; Appendix A; Kunst et al.,

2012a), and the Multi-Religion Identity Measure (MRIM; Appendix B; Abu-Rayya et al., 2009).

This survey was distributed from September 2014 to November 2014 through websites, social

media, and emails by four gateway organizations.

Setting

The survey was distributed to Muslim populations in the US and the UK through four

gateway organizations focused on social justice, advocacy, and religious freedom for Muslims.

The organizations were: Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim American

Society Public Affairs and Civic Engagement (MAS-PACE), Islamic Society of North

America (ISNA), and Grieboski Global Strategies. This approach allowed for the participants to

complete this survey in confidentiality, in privacy, and took less than 20 minutes to complete.
 72

The type of organizations and manner in which the surveys distributed may have

impacted the sample. The participants required internet access, computer skills, be able to read

and understand English, and have a connection to these organizations. It is possible that these

factors limited the participants to be educated and of middle class or higher. Given that these

organizations deal with countering Islamophobia, pursing religious freedom, and protecting

human rights, this suggests that the sample has an interest in these topics and may be more aware

of Islamophobia compared to Muslim who are not interacting with the organizations.

Demographics

The survey was completed by 179 respondent who self-reported as Muslim and lived in

the US or UK. The demographics of the sample are depicted in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2. Table

1.1 displays the frequency and percentage of the respondents age, residence, gender, education,

and perceived economic status of country. The sample comprised of 104 respondents aged 18-

39 years (58.1%) and 75 respondents aged 40 plus years (41.9%). For current residence, 162

respondents lived in the US (90.5%) while 17 lived in the UK (9.5%). In regards to gender, the

sample consisted of 56 men (31.3%) and 117 women (65.4%), while 6 did not respond (3.4%).

This sample consisted of 17 respondents with a high school education or less (9.5%), 86

respondents who attended some college or have a college degree (48%), 73 who attended some

graduate school or who have a graduate degree (40.8%), and 3 who did not respond (1.7%). Of

the respondents, 20 participants indicated very unfavorable or unfavorable economic conditions

in the country (11.2%), 17 indicated that they were unsure (9.5%), 137 responded favorable or

very favorable conditions (76.5%), and 5 did not respond (2.8%).

 73

Table 1.1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 179)

Characteristic n %
Age (years)
18-39 104 58.1
40+ 75 41.9
Nation
United States 162 90.5
United Kingdom 17 9.5
Gender
Male 56 31.3
Female 117 65.4
No Response 6 3.4
Education Level
Less than high school/high school 17 9.5
Some college/college degree 86 48
Some graduate school/graduate degree 73 40.8
No Response 3 1.7
Perceived Economic Condition of Country
Very unfavorable/unfavorable 20 11.2
Unsure 17 9.5
Favorable/very favorable 137 76.5
No Response 5 2.8

Table 1.2 displays the conversion status, sect affiliation, nationality represented by

continent, and number of years in current country. This sample consisted of 102 individuals who

were lifelong Muslims (57%) while 73 were Muslim converts (40.8%) and 4 did not respond

(2.2%). In regards to sect affiliation, 124 reported Sunni (69.3%), 7 indicated Shia (Shiite)

(3.9%), and 48 did not respond (26.8%). Nationality is represented through the affiliated

continent. For this sample, 85 individuals indicated a country in the Americas (South America

and North America; 47.5%), 10 reported a country in Europe (5.6%), 9 responded with a country

in Africa (5%), 55 indicated a country in Asia (including Middle Eastern countries; 30.7%), and

20 did not respond (11.2%). To assess the samples immigration status, 93 respondents indicated
 74

that they were born in their current country (52.0%), 82 respondents reported living in their

current country for 0 to 31 plus years (45.8%), and 4 did not respond (2.2%).

Table 1.2

Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 179)

Characteristic n %
Conversion Status
Lifelong Muslim 102 57.0
Muslim Convert 73 40.8
No Response 4 2.2
Sect Affiliation
Sunni 124 69.3
Shia (Shiite) 7 3.9
No Response 49 26.8
Nationality
Americas 85 47.5
Europe 10 5.6
Africa 9 5.0
Asia 55 30.7
No Response 20 11.2
Years in Country
Born 93 52.0
0-31+ years in country 82 45.8
No Response 4 2.2

Results

The data was analyzed to answer the research questions. The first research question is: Is

there a statistically significant difference of perceived Islamophobia and religious identity

between Muslims in the US and the UK? The proposed statistical analysis was MANOVA due

to the question having two dependent variables, yet this was not appropriate because the

dependent variables were not correlated, violating the assumption of a significant linear

relationship between dependent variables (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013). This answering of

this question was also impacted by the sample size not meeting the required amount of depicted
 75

by the power analysis of 252 individuals and the collected data heavily represented the US

Muslim population over the UK population.

Two independent t-tests are appropriate to analyze the dependent variables (religious

identity and perceived Islamophobia) in regards to the two groups of the independent variable

(nation; US vs UK; Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013). The first independent t-test analyzed the

impact of nation on religious identity. There was not a statistically significant effect of nation on

religious identity (t = -1.84, df = 164, p = .068, two-tailed). The second independent t-test

analyzed the impact of nation on perceived Islamophobia. There was not a statistically

significant effect of nation on perceived Islamophobia (t = -1.54, df = 173, p = .126, two-tailed).

Due to the wide group difference between the US and UK sample which the t-test does not

address, a one-way ANOVA with a third dummy variable for location was performed and the

post-hoc test Hochberg GT2 was conducted for each dependent variable. Employing the

Hochberg GT2 post-hoc test, no significant differences were found between the US religious

identity and the UK religious identity, p = .185, and no significant differences were found

between the US perceived Islamophobia and the UK perceived Islamophobia, p = .327. Even

when the wide group difference was corrected, the same results were found.

A simple MANOVA was conducted to test the impact of nation on the subscales of

religious identity and then on the subscales of perceived Islamophobia. The simple MANOVA

was appropriate due to the multiple dependent variables (the subscales) and the correlation

between the dependent variables (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2013). A one-way MANOVA

revealed there was not a significant multivariate main effect for religious identity, F(3, 162) =

2.14, p = .098; Wilks Lambda = .962; partial = .038. A Boxs M test found the test to be

significant (F(6, 3290) = 5.04, p = .000). Analysis of each individual dependent variable used a
 76

Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .017. There was no statistically significant impact of nation

on Religious Affirmation and Belonging, F(1,164) = 4.47, p = .036, partial = .027. There was

no significant impact of nation on Religious Identity Achievement, F(1,164) = 3.113, p = .080,

partial = .019, or for Religious Faith and Practices, F(1,164) = .092, p = .344, partial = .005.

No significant effects were found for nation on the religious identity subscales.

A one-way MANOVA revealed that there was a significant multivariate main effect for

perceived Islamophobia, F(3, 171) = 4.01, p = .009; Wilks Lambda = .934; partial = .066

(See Table 2). A Boxs M test found the test to not be significant (F(6, 3780.35) = 1.42 , p =

.202). Analysis of each individual dependent variable used a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of

.017. There was a statistically significant impact of nation on Islamophobia in Media, F(1,173)

= 7.99, p = .005, partial = .044. There was not a significant impact of nation on General Fear,

F(1,173) = 1.45, p = .23, partial = .008, or for Fear of Islamization, F(1,173) = .089, p = .766,

partial = .001. Perceived Islamophobia in media was found to be significantly impacted by

nation, with the US Muslims indicating a higher level of perceived Islamophobia in media

compared to UK Muslims.

Table 2

MANOVA Analysis on the Impact of Nation on Perceived Islamophobia

US UK F(1, 164)
(n = 159) (n = 16)
M M F p partial

Perceived Islamophobia
General Fear 4.124 3.833 1.454 .230 .008
Fear of Islamization 4.004 4.104 .089 .766 .001
Islamophobia in Media 5.149 4.229 7.988 .005* .044
*significance at 0.01
 77

Hypothesis 1, which predicted that there would be a statistically significant effect of

nation on perceived Islamophobia and religious identity, was partially supported. Religious

identity and perceived Islamophobia were not able to be tested together with nation due to the

dependent variables not being related. This resulted in the dependent variables being tested

separately with the independent variable. There was no statistically significance difference

between religious identity among the US Muslim respondents and the UK Muslim respondents.

There was a statistically significant difference between perceived Islamophobia in media among

US Muslim respondents compared to UK Muslim respondents.

The sample was merged and treated as a single sample for the remainder of the analyses.

The Muslim respondents mean religious identity cumulative score was 6.91 (scale ranged 0-7)

and mean perceived Islamophobia cumulative score was 4.31 (scale ranged 1-5). This suggests a

strong religious identity and a high level of perceived Islamophobia. The second research

question is: What is the relationship between religious identity and perceived Islamophobia?

The results show that there was no statistically significant correlation between religious identity

and perceived Islamophobia (r = .009, N = 164, p >.05, two-tailed). The relationship between

overall scores of perceived Islamophobia and religious identity were further tested by controlling

for conversion status using multiple regression. Using the enter method, a significant model was

found when controlling for conversion status: F (2, 157) = 7.509, p = .001. The model explains

7.6% of the variance (Adjusted R = .076). Table 3 gives information for the predictor variables

entered into the model and is displayed in the scatterplot in Figure 2. Religious identity was not

a significant predictor of perceived Islamophobia, but conversion status was found to be a

significant predictor of perceived Islamophobia.

 78

Table 3

Controlling for Conversion Status to Test Relationship between PIS and MRIM

Variable B SE B
Conversion Status .505 .131 .295**
Religious Identity .041 .078 .040
**- significant at the 0.01 level

Figure 2

Relationship between PIS and MRIM when Controlling for Conversion Status

A correlational analysis was conducted to determine if significant relationship exist

between the subscales of religious identity and perceived Islamophobia (see table 4). There were

no statistically significant correlations between overall perceived Islamophobia and religious

affirmation and belonging (r = -.034, N = 174, p > .05, two-tailed), overall perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity achievement (r = -.009, N = 169, p > .05, two-tailed), nor

overall perceived Islamophobia and religious faith and practices (r = -.009, N = 171, p > .05,
 79

two-tailed). There was no statistically significant correlation between overall religious identity

and general fear (r = -.101, N = 165, p > .05, two-tailed). There was a significant negative

correlation between general fear and religious affirmation and belonging (r = -.150, N = 175, p <

.05, two-tailed). It is a weak correlation, with 2.25% of the variation explained. There were no

statistically significant correlations between general fear and religious identity achievement (r = -

.082, N =6 170, p > .05, two-tailed) nor general fear and religious faith and practices (r = -.089,

N = 172, p > .05, two-tailed).

There was a statistically significant negative correlation between fear of islamization and

overall religious identity (r = -.157, N = 166, p < .05, two-tailed). It is a weak correlation, with

2.25% of the variation explained. There was a statistically significant negative correlation

between fear of islamization and religious identity achievement (r = -.172, N = 178, p < .05, two-

tailed). It is a weak correlation, with 2.96% of the variation explained. There was not a

statistically significant correlation between fear of islamization and religious faith and practices

(r = -.110, N = 174, p < .05, two-tailed).

There was a statistically significant positive correlation between Islamophobia in media

and overall religious identity (r = .352, N = 165, p < .01, two-tailed). It is a moderate

correlation, with 12.4% of the variation explained. There was a statistically significant positive

correlation between Islamophobia in media and religion affirmation and belief (r = .324, N =

177, p < .01, two-tailed). It is a moderate correlation, with 10.5% of the variation explained.

There is a statistically significant positive correlation between Islamophobia in media and

religious identity achievement (r = .259, N = 171, p < .01, two-tailed). This is a weak

correlation, with 6.71% of the variation explained. There was a significant positive correlation
 80

between Islamophobia in media and religious faith and practices (r = .269, N = 173, p < .01, two-

tailed). This is a weak correlation, with 7.24% of the variation explained.

Table 4

Correlations between Religious Identity and Perceived Islamophobia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Overall Religious --
Identity
2. Religion .944** --
Affirmation and
Belonging
3. Religious Identity .874** .728** --
Achievement
4. Religious Faith and .891** .822** .635** --
Practices
5. Overall Perceived .009 -.034 -.009 -.009 --
Islamophobia
6. General Fear -.101 -.150* -.082 -.089 .873** --
1. Fear of -.157* -.172* -.160* -.110 .823** .628** --
Islamization
2. Islamophobia in .352** .324** .259** .269** .663** .325** .356** --
Media
**-correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*-correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Hypothesis 2, which predicted a statistically significant relationship between perceived

Islamophobia and religious identity, was partially supported. There was no significant

relationship between the cumulative scores of religious identity and perceived Islamophobia,

even when conversion status was controlled. Positive correlations were found between

perceived Islamophobia in media and religious identity, and its subscales: religious affirmation

and belonging, religious identity achievement, and religious faith and practices.

Additional Findings

Reliability analyses was conducted due to variance that may occur based on cultural,

sample, or situational factors. Cronbachs alpha for the PIS scale was .892 and for the MRIM

scale was .899.

 81

Predictor variables of perceived Islamophobia were analyzed using a multiple regression.

This analysis tested the demographic variables age, education level, gender, years in country,

conversion status and perceived economic condition of country and the three subscales of

religious identity. Two demographic variables were found to predict perceived Islamophobia,

conversion status and gender. Using the stepwise method, a significant model emerged for

conversion status: F (1, 152) = 14.52, p = .000. The model explains 8.1% of the variance

(Adjusted R = .081). Using the stepwise method, a significant model emerged for gender: F (2,

151) = 11.16, p = .000. The model explains 11.7% of the variance (Adjusted R = .117). A two-

way ANOVA found that the main effect of gender on perceived Islamophobia was statistically

significant (F (1, 163), = 5.336, p = .022, partial = .03). The main effect of conversion on

perceived Islamophobia was found to be statistically significant (F (1, 163), = 7.967, p = .005,

partial = .05). There was no significant interaction between the factor of conversion and the

factor of gender (F (1, 163), = .551, p = .459, partial = .00).

Table 5

Impact of Demographic Variables on Perceived Islamophobia

F df p partial
Conversion Status 7.967 1, 163 .005** .03
Gender 5.336 1, 163 .022* .05
* - significant at the 0.05 level
**- significant at the 0.01 level

As Figure 3 shows that there is no overlap between the two groups, male and female, on

perceived Islamophobia. This indicates that a significant difference exists between these two

groups, with females (4.49) reporting a higher level of perceived Islamophobia than men (3.92).
 82

Figure 3

Impact of Gender on Perceived Islamophobia

As Figure 4 shows that there is no overlap between the two groups, born into Islam and

converted, on perceived Islamophobia. This indicates that a significant difference exists between

these two groups, with those who converted (4.62) reporting a higher level of perceived

Islamophobia than those born into Islam (4.09).

 83

Figure 4

Impact of Conversion on Perceived Islamophobia

Summary

From September 2014 through November 2014, four gateway organizations distributed

the online survey to Muslim populations in the US and the UK through emails, websites, and

social media. The sample consisted of 179 respondents, which was smaller than the required 252

participants to conduct a simple MANOVA with two dependent variables (research question 1)

yet met the required 111 participants to conduct a Pearsons r (research question 2). The

analysis of the data was also impacted by the wide difference between the US sample and UK

sample, making it difficult to conduct a comparison between the two countries. Alternative

approaches to analyze the data were necessitated due to the actual sample size.

For research question one, the analysis found no significant effect of nation on the

cumulative scores of perceived Islamophobia and the cumulative scores of religious identity.

The post-hoc test Hochberg GT2 replicated these results despite correcting the wide group

difference. Conversion status was then controlled when testing the relationship between
 84

religious identity and perceived Islamophobia, which indicated that perceived Islamophobia was

related to conversion but not religious identity. Further analyses were conducted to understand

the effect of nation on the subscales of both measurement tools. There were no significant

findings that supported an effect of nation on the subscales of religion identity. However,

significant findings were present for the effect of nation on perceived Islamophobia in media.

This findings suggest that religious identity did not differ between the US and UK. Perceived

Islamophobia in media did vary between the US and UK, with US Muslim respondents

indicating more perceived Islamophobia in media than UK Muslim respondents. The hypothesis

that there would be a statistically significant effect of nation on perceived Islamophobia and

religious identity was partially supported given that perceived Islamophobia in media differed

between US Muslim respondents and UK Muslim respondents.

For research question two, the US data and UK data were combined into one sample. No

significant correlation was found between religious identity and perceived Islamophobia. The

sample was found to have a strong religious identity and a high level of perceived Islamophobia,

yet these factors were not related. A correlational analysis was conducted between the overall

scores and subscales of the religious identity and perceived Islamophobia. Perceived

Islamophobia in media was positively correlated with the cumulative score of religious identity

and all of the religious identity subscales. The hypothesis that a statistically significant

relationship would exist between religious identity and perceived Islamophobia was partially

supported by perceived Islamophobia in media being positively correlated with religious identity

and all of its subscales: religious affirmation and belonging, religious identity achievement, and

religious faith and practices.

 85

The demographic variables and subscales for religious identity were analyzed in regards

to predicting perceived Islamophobia. Two demographic variables were found to predict

perceived Islamophobia, conversion status and gender. A main effect was found for conversion

status and gender, yet no statistically significant interaction exists between the two demographic

variables. Those who converted to Islam indicated a higher level of perceived Islamophobia than

those born into the religion and significant difference was indicated between the groups. Women

indicated a higher level of perceived Islamophobia than men and significant difference was

found between the genders.

 86

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions

Introduction

This qualitative study sought to better understand the interaction between nation,

perceived Islamophobia, and religious identity. Islamophobia is increasing in Western societies

(Amer & Bagasra, 2013) and has been found to be detrimental to Muslim minorities within those

countries (Awad, 2010; Kunst et al., 2012b; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015; Moosavi, 2015).

This study defines Islamophobia as a social anxiety towards Islam and Muslim cultures

(Gottschalk and Greenberg as cited in Kunst et al., 2012a, p. 2). Identity formation, including

collective identity and self-identity, has been found to be a common challenge for Muslim

minorities residing in Western societies (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood,

2015; Moosavi, 2015; Peek, 2005). Identities are important to comprehend in regards to

intergroup relations due to how identities influence how one interacts with in-group members

and out-group members (Tajfel & Turner, 2004; Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic,

2012). Religious identity is suggested to fluctuate when faced by identity threat (e.g., perceived

Islamophobia) depending on the national context (Kunst et al., 2012a; Tajfel & Turner, 2004;

Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). The US and the UK fear towards Muslims

and Islam differ, with the US fear based in fear of international terrorism and the UK fear based

in local sources of terrorism while dealing with a changing national identity and role of

Christianity (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2015; zyrek, 2005). Perceived Islamophobia is

defined as Muslim minorities own perception of islamophobia [at the group level] in their

societies of settlement (Kunst et al., 2012a). This study analyzed the interaction between

nation, perceived Islamophobia, and religious identity in accordance with social identity theory

(Tajfel & Turner, 2004) among US Muslims and UK Muslims.

 87

Interpretation of Findings

The interaction between nation, perceived Islamophobia, and religious identity were the

first focus of this study. According to social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 2004),

national context influences how individuals will increase their in-group identities when faced

with identity threats (Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Muslim minorities

religious identity of have been found to vary across countries when faced with identity threats

(e.g., discrimination, religious stigma, or perceived Islamophobia; Friedman & Serglou, 2010;

Kunst et al., 2012a; Kunst et al., 2012b; Sirin et al., 2008; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).

The findings of this study partially supported the hypothesis that nation would influence

perceived Islamophobia and religious identity. Differences in cumulative perceived

Islamophobia and cumulative religious identity could not be connected to the US or the UK. It is

possible that the national context between the US and the UK are similar and do are not related

to differences in religious identity and perceived Islamophobia among the Muslim respondents.

The findings of this study may align with Sirin et al. (2008), Kunst et al.s (2012a), and Kunst et

al. (2012b). Sirin et al. (2008) found that the US Muslim respondents national identity and

religious identity could coexist, with discrimination only impacting their national identity. Kunst

et al. (2012b) found a similar results for Norwegian-Pakistani who were not conflicted between

their religious identity and national identity. When face with discrimination, Norwegian-

Pakistani respondents (Kunst et al., 2012b) and the US Muslim respondents (Sirin et al., 2008)

responded by decreasing their national identity or engagement. It is also possible that the

respondents did not feel it necessary to increase their already high religious identity when faced

with perceived Islamophobia or may have been concerned as being perceived as radicalizing, as

suggested by Kunst et al. (2012b).

 88

The first hypothesis was partially supported by the finding that perceived Islamophobia in

media was high among US Muslim respondents compared to UK Muslim respondents. This is

an unexpected given that Kunst et al. (2012a) found that the British-Pakistani respondents

perceived Islamophobia was greatly influenced by perceived Islamophobia in media. These

findings suggest that the US Muslim respondents perceived Islamophobia was more influenced

by perceived Islamophobia in media compared to the UK Muslim respondents.

The second focus of this study was on the relationship between perceived Islamophobia

and religious identity. For this part of the study, the US Muslim sample and the UK Muslim

sample were combined into a single sample. According the SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 2004;

Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012), perceived Islamophobia may influence the

strength of religious identity. Therefore, it was hypothesized that a significant relationship

would be found between perceived Islamophobia and religious identity. It was predicted that

this would be a positive relationship. The hypothesis was partially supported that a relationship

exists between perceived Islamophobia and religious identity. The cumulative scores of

perceived Islamophobia and religious identity were not found to be related. Conversion status

was controlled due to its impact of perceiving Islamophobia (Moosavi, 2015), yet the

relationship between perceived Islamophobia and religious identity remained insignificant.

It is possible that this lack of relationship between perceived Islamophobia and religious

identity was due to how strong the religious identity already was (Kunst et al., Verkuyten, 2007).

The US Muslim respondents and UK Muslim respondents indicated a strong religious identity,

scoring 6.91 on a scale of 0-7. Verkuyten (2007) suggested three reasons why Muslim

minorities may have a strong religious identity. One reason is that they may not perceive that

religious identity is an option but rather a constant. The second reason may be that Muslim
 89

minorities already strengthened their religious identity due to the pervasiveness of Islamophobia.

The third reason for the strong religious affiliation among Muslim minorities was due to the

nature of monotheistic religions which typically result in strong religious identities (Verkuyten,

2007). It is also possible that the Muslim respondents altered one of their other identities (e.g.,

national identity or ethnic identity) when faced with perceived Islamophobia (Kunst et al.,

2012b; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012).

The second hypothesis was partially supported by the positive relationship between

perceived Islamophobia in media and religious identity. The cumulative religious identity and

subscales, religious affirmation and belonging, religious identity achievement, and religious faith

and practices, were all found to be positively correlated with perceived Islamophobia. These

findings may be similar to Kunst et al. (2012b), which suggested that the negative media

increased awareness of German-Turk respondents collective identity which resulted in an

increased religious identity. Kunst et al. (2012a) found perceived Islamophobia in media to be

the most perceived Islamophobia across French-Maghrebi, German-Turks, and British-Pakistani

samples.

This study analyzed the data for predictors of perceived Islamophobia and religious

identity. No predictors were found for religious identity among the Muslim respondents. For

Sirin et al. (2008), the only predictor of religious identity among US Muslims was religiosity.

Given that the measurement of religious identity in this study was multidimensional and included

the assessment of such factors as religious beliefs, devotion, belongingness, and engagement in

practices, this relationship may exist within the measurement of religious identity (Abu-Rayya et

al., 2009).
 90

The findings suggest that conversion and gender predict perceived Islamophobia.

Contradictory to research suggesting that the male and female converts have differing

experiences (Inloes & Takim, 2014), this study did not find an interaction between gender and

conversion. Muslim converts reported a higher level of perceived Islamophobia compared to

lifelong Muslims. Moosavi (2015) suggests that Muslim converts are more sensitive perceiving

subtle Islamophobia, which is more prevalent than overt Islamophobia, due to their prior

membership within the majority group (e.g., non-Muslim). It is possible that the Muslim

converts dual-consciousness heightens their perception of Islamophobia. Lifelong Muslims

may not perceive Islamophobia at the same level because it is considered a normal part of their

daily lives (Moosavi, 2015). Gender was found to predict perceived Islamophobia, with women

indicating more perceived Islamophobia compared to men. While studies suggest that Muslim

men experience more discrimination (Ghaffari & ifti, 2010), this may be more overt instances

of Islamophobia. Given that women are a member of another minority group, being female, they

may be more sensitive to perceiving covert instances of Islamophobia (Perry, 2014).

Implications

The findings of this study add to the body of literature on intergroup relations, social

group identity, Muslim identity formation, and perceived Islamophobia. It focused on the

interaction of nation, perceived Islamophobia, and religious identity among Muslim minorities in

Western societies. This study suggests that media has a negative impact on Muslim minorities in

Western societies. Perceived Islamophobia in media may influence Muslims to alter their

national identity and engagement. This indicates that media outlets should recognize their

impact on intergroup relations and identity formation and address this issue. This study implies

that context is crucial when understanding the realities of Muslim minorities. Findings from

some Western societies may not be applicable to others, requiring the researcher to be cognizant
 91

of the sociopolitical environment. This type of research may be beneficial in tackling the

societal systems that are found to be detrimental to the Muslim community.

The problem that this research aims to address is the rise in Islamophobia and the limited

culturally-sensitive empirical research in psychology developed from perspectives of Muslim

samples in different nations (Amer & Bagasra, 2013). This study addressed the research

problem by focusing on perceived Islamophobia among Muslim minorities in the US and UK.

This study was culturally-sensitive by utilizing a religious identity measure developed within the

Muslim psychology of religion (Abu-Rayya et al., 2009, a perceived Islamophobia scale

developed to reflect Muslim perceptions (Kunst et al., 2012a), and a demographics questioner

structured around research findings (Amer & Bagasra, 2013).

Limitations

This study sought to explore the interaction between nation, perceived Islamophobia, and

religious identity. This objective was limited by the sample size and a cross-cultural comparison

could not be conducted. While this study exceeded the minimum amount of 100 respondents

required to test for statistical significance when using a survey (Jackson, 2010), it is limited by

the large difference between the sample from the US (n = 162) and the UK (n = 17). This large

difference in respondents between the two independent groups does not allow for an adequate

analysis of the difference between the groups. Despite efforts to connect with UK-based

resources for Muslims, the efforts of the gateway organizations with connections in the UK, and

utilizing a snowball technique to reach participants, responses were difficult to acquire. My

attempts to connect with the UK organizations were not successful, as none of the organizations

responded to my inquiries. This small sample size from the UK may be indicative of the

sociopolitical environment. Moosavi (2015) indicated that British Muslims were heavily sought
 92

after by academics, journalists, and politicians (p. 42) since September 11, 2001. Hesitation

and suspicion may hinder Muslims participation in research due to the unknown agenda of the

researcher.

This study is an exploratory design, which functions to guide future research as opposed

to determining causation (Babbie, 2010). Quasi experimental designs are criticized as not being

rigorous enough to determine a causal relationship due to the inability to control for all

confounding and extraneous variables (Cone & Foster, 2006). Correlation studies are only able

to distinguish relationships, not causation (Babbie, 2010). Given these limitations, this study can

only determine if relationships exists between the variables which can guide future research in

understanding why the relationship exists. This study was further limited by the identities that it

focused on. It is evident within research that national identity and ethnic identity (Verkuyten,

2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012) are important factors in relation to religious identity and

identity threats for Muslim minorities in Western societies. This study did not take these

identities into account.

The findings of this study represent the realities of those who responded. It may only be

applicable to a small portion of the US and UK Muslim communities given the high education

level indicated by the respondents. The sample was also mostly limited to those who could read

and comprehend English, had access to the internet, use social media, email, and the websites of

the gateway organizations. Given the impact of culture and the sample size, the results cannot be

generalized to the global community. The findings cannot also be used to compare the US

against the UK. This study is an advancement to current research due to research on

Islamophobia largely neglecting the experience and perceptions of Muslims.

 93

The final limitation to this study are based in the measurement tools used in a study. It is

crucial that the instruments used in this study produce reliable data (Cone & Foster, 2006). The

current body of research is limited to measurement tools that are predominantly not appropriate

for the Muslim population due to being culture-bound and culture-blind (Amer & Bagasra, 2013;

Arnett, 2008; Berry, 2013; Kunst et al., 2012a; Fields, 2010). These tools in psychological

literature are limited in reliability, validity, and cultural sensitivity when applied to the Muslim

community (Amer & Bagasra, 2013). The two measurement tools selected for this study were

established using Muslim samples and demonstrate appropriate psychometric properties for the

purposes of this study: the PIS (Kunst et al., 2012a) and the MRIM (Abu-Rayya et al., 2009).

The PIS has acceptable reliability coefficients across three samples, with .90 for a German-Arab

sample, .89 for a French-Maghrebis sample, and .92 for a British-Pakistani sample (Kunst et al.,

2012a). The PIS has demonstrated appropriate levels of criterion validity (German-Arabs =

.17, p < .05, German-Turkish = .17, p < .05, and British-Pakistani = .18. p < .01), construct

validity, and convergent validity (German-Arab .21-.64, German-Turkish .32-.52, and British-

Pakistani .45-.68; Kunst et al., 2012a). The MRIM demonstrated sufficient cronbach alpha

coefficients across two samples, with .83 for a high school sample and .89 for a college sample

(Abu-Rayya et al., 2009). The MRIM was found to be statistically valid, with correlations of .61-

.92 for the high school sample and .62-.94 for the college sample.

Recommendations

Future studies should focus on developing relationships within the Muslim community in

order to reach participants. By developing trust and rapport, the hesitation to engage in the study

may subside. It is also important that linguistic differences are addressed and participants be

sought out in a variety of contexts, such as academic arenas, places of worship, or community

centers. This will allow for a more representative sample.

 94

Future studies should consider including multiple identities (e.g., ethnic identity and

national identity) and measure the complexity of identities among the respondents. Verkuyten

and Martinovic (2012) demonstrated that simple and complex identities are influential in social

group identification and responses to perceived Islamophobia. The relationship between

religious identity and national identity should be further researched. Be mindful of the varying

manners to define and operationalize religious identity and perceived Islamophobia, otherwise

studies and results are difficult to interpret and generalize.

Qualitative studies may be beneficial in guiding researchers to factors that are crucial for

the Muslim communities within context. The national context is a crucial factor to recognize

when studying the experiences and perceptions of Muslims within Western societies. Future

studies should demonstrate the impact of the sociopolitical environment on the lives of Muslim

minorities.

Conclusion

This study focused on the interaction between nation, perceived Islamophobia, and

religious identity among Muslim minorities in the US and UK. Societal context has been found

to impact Muslim identity formation, which is crucial in intergroup relations due to how it

influences ones group membership (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008; Peek, 2005, Verkuyten, 2007).

The social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 2004) suggests that Muslim minorities may be

influenced by national context when their religious identity is threatened by perceived

Islamophobia (Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). This study found that

religious identity among US Muslims and UK Muslims is very strong. Islamophobia in media

was found to be highly perceived US Muslim. Perceived Islamophobia in media was found to be

positively related to religious identity, which may indicate it as a perceived threat towards
 95

identity. Western societies need to address issues that exacerbate the Islamophobic context, such

as media, in order to promote improved intergroup relations and the well-being of its residents.
 96

References

Abu-Rayya, H. M., Abu-Rayya, M. H., & Khalil, M. (2009). The multi-religion identity

measure: A new scale for use with diverse religions. Journal of Muslim Mental Health,

4(2), 124-138. doi: 10.1080/15564900903245683

Alam, Y., & Husband, C. (2013). Islamophobia, community cohesion and counter-terrorism

policies in Britain. Patterns of Prejudice, 47(3), 235-252.

Amer, M. M., & Bagasra, A. (2013, April). Psychological research with Muslim

Americans in the age of Islamophobia: Trends, challenges, and recommendations.

American Psychologist, 68(3), 134-144.

Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less

American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602-614.

Association of Religion Data Archives (The ARDA). (2015). Retrieved from http://thearda.com/

Awad, G. H. (2010). The impact of acculturation and religious identification on perceived

discrimination for Arab/Middle Eastern Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 16(1), 59-67.

Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). United States: WADSWORTH

CENGAGE Learning.

Berry, J. W. (2013). Global psychology. South African Journal of Psychology, 43(4), 391-401.

Bleich, E. (2011). What is Islamophobia and how much is there? Theorizing and measuring

an emerging comparative concept. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), 1581-1600.

doi: 10.1177/00027642110409387

Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2013). SPSS for psychologists (5th ed.). New York:

Routledge.
 97

Central Intelligence Agency. (2015). The world factbook. Retrieved from

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Chaudhury, S. R., & Miller, L. (2008). Religious identity formation among Bangladeshi

American Muslim adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(4), 383-410.

Christopher, J. C., Wendt, D. C., Marecek, J., & Goodman, D. M. (2014). Critical cultural

awareness: Contributions to a globalizing psychology. American Psychologist, 69(7),

645-655.

Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to finish (2nd ed.).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Conrad, J., & Milton, D. (2013). Unpacking the connection between terror and Islam. Studies in

Conflict & Terrorism, 36(4), 315-336. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2013.763600 f

Davis, D. H. (2002). The evolution of religious freedom as a universal human right: Examining

the role of the 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of

Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Brigham Young

University Law Review, 217-236.

Department of Health. (2005). Research governance framework for health and social

care. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads

/attachment_data/file/139565/dh_4122427.pdf

Elchardus, M., & Spruyt, B. (2013). Universalism and anti-Muslim sentiment. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016.ijintrel.2013.03.001

Everett, J. A. C., Schellhass, F. M. H., Earp, B. D., Ando, V., Memarzia, J., Parise, C. V.
 98

Hewstone, M. (2015). Covered in stigma? The impact of differing levels of Islamic head-

covering on explicit and implicit biases toward Muslim women. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 45(1), 90-104.

Fields, A. J. (2010). Multicultural research and practice: Theoretical issues and maximizing

cultural exchange. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(3), 196-201.

Fox, J., & Flores, D. (2009). Religions, constitutions, and the state: A cross-national study. The

Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1499-1513. doi: 10.1017/S0022381609990053

Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I., & Austin, S. (Eds.). (2011). Critical psychology: An introduction (2nd

ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Friedman, M., & Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiosity, psychological acculturation to the host

culture, self-esteem and depressive symptoms among stigmatized and nonstigmatized

religious immigrant groups in Western Europe. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,

32(1), 185-195.

Garner, S. & Selod, S. (2015). The racialization of Muslims: Empirical studies of Islamophobia.

Critical Sociology, 41(1), 9-19.

Ghaffari, A., & ifti, A. (2010). Religiosity and self-esteem of Muslim immigrants to the

United States: The moderating role of perceived discrimination. The International

Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 20(14), 14-24.

Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., & Khan, Z. H. (2007). Theoretical, empirical, and potential

ideological dimensions of using Western conceptualizations to measure Muslim religious

commitments. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2(1), 113-131.

Greenfield, P. M. (2000). Three approaches to the psychology of culture: Where do they come

from? Where can they go? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 223-240.
 99

Grim, B. J., & Finke, R. (2007). Religious persecution in cross-national context: Clashing

civilizations or regulated religious economies? American Sociological Review, 72(4),

633-658.

Grim, B. J., & Finke, R. (2011). The price of freedom denied: Religious persecution and conflict

in the twenty-first century. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Guimond, S., Crisp, R. J., de Oliveira, P., Kemiejski, R., Kteily, N.., Kuepper, B., Zick, A.

(2013). Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice

in changing social and political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

104(6), 941-958. doi: 10.1037/a0032069

Hodge, D. R. (2007). Social justice and people of faith: A transnational perspective. Social Work,

52(2), 139-148.

Hodge, D. R. (2012). Social justice, international human rights, and religious persecution: The

status of the marginalized human right religious freedom. Social Work and Christianity,

39(1), 3-26.

Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49.

Inloes, A., & Takim, L. (2014). Conversion to Twelver Shiism among American and Canadian

women. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 43(1), 3-24.

Jackson, L. (2010). Images of Islam in US media and their educational implications. Educational

Studies, 46(1), 3-24.

Jackson, S. L. (2011). Research methods: A modular approach (2nd ed.). United States:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Kim, U., Yang, K.-S., & Hwang, K.-K. (2006). Contributions to indigenous and cultural
 100

psychology: Understanding people in context. In U. Kim, K.-S. Yang, & K.-K. Hwang

(Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 3-25).

United States: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

Kunst, J. R., Sam, D. L. & Ulleberg, P. (2012). Perceived Islamophobia: Scale development and

validation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrek.2012.11.001

Kunst, J. R., Tajamal, H., Sam, D. L., & Ulleberg, P. (2012). Coping with Islamophobia:

The effects of religious stigma on Muslim minorities identity formation. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 518-532. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.12.014

Lee, S. A., Reid, C. A., Short, S. D., Gibbons, J. A., Yeh, R., & Campbell, M. L. (2013). Fear of

Muslims: Psychometric evaluation of the Islamophobia scale. Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality. doi: 10.1037/a0032117

Lerner, N. (2000). The nature and minimum standards of freedom of religion or belief. Brigham

Young University Law Review, 2000(3), 905-932.

Mac an Ghaill, M., & Haywood, C. (2015). British-born Pakistani and Bangladeshi young men:

Exploring unstable concepts of Muslim, islamophobia and racialization. Critical

Sociology, 41(1), 97-114.

Marshall, P. A. (Ed.). (2008). Religious freedom in the world. New York: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Mohammadi, N. Jones, T., & Evans, D. (2008). Participant recruitment from minority

religious groups: The case of the Islamic population in South Australia. International

Nursing Review, 55(1), 393-398.

Moosavi, L. (2015). The racialization of Muslim converts in Britain and their experiences in
 101

Islamophobia. Critical Psychology, 41(1), 41-56.

NIH Office of Extramural Research. (2014). Protecting human participants. Retrieved

from http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2015). What are human rights? Retreived

from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx

Ogan, C., Willnat, L., Pennington, R., & Bashir, M. (2014). The rise of anti-Muslim prejudice:

Media and Islamophobia in Europe and the United States. The International

Communication Gazette, 76(1), 27-46.

zyrek, E. (2005). The politics of cultural unification, secularism, and the place of Islam in the

new Europe. American Ethnologist, 32(4), 509-512.

Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The development of a religious identity. Sociology of

Religion, 66(3), 215-242.

Perry, B. (2014). Gendered islamophobia: Hate crime against Muslim women. Social Identities,

20(1), 74-89.

Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly

discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist,

53(10), 1101-1110.

Sinha, D. (2002). Culture and psychology: Perspective of cross-cultural psychology. Psychology

and Developing Societies, 14(1), 11-25.

Sirin, S. R., Bikmen, N., Mir, M., Fine, M., Zaal, M., & Katsiaficas, D. (2008). Exploring dual

identification among Muslim-American emerging adults: A mixed methods study.

Journal of Adolescence, 31(1), 259-279.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of
 102

Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221-2237.

Tarakeshwar, J., Stanton, J., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Religion: An overlooked dimension in

cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(1), 377-394. doi:

10.1177/0022022103034004001

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost

& J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (276-293). New York:

Psychology Press.

United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

United Nations. (1981, Nov. 25). Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of

Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religious or Belief. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r055.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). International compilation of

human research standards. Retrieved from

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html

Verkuyten, M. (2007). Religious group identification and inter-religious relations: A study

among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Groups Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 341-

357.

Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2012). Social identity complexity and immigrants attitude

toward the host nations: The intersection of ethnic and religious group identification.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1165-1177.

 103

Appendix A: Perceived Islamophobia Scale

The Perceived Islamophobia Scale (PIS) measures Muslim minorities own perception of

islamophobia [at the group level] in their societies of settlement (Kunst et al., 2012a, p. 1). The

PIS is a 12 item 6 point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). It is

contrived of three subscales: general fear, fear of islamization, and islamophobia in media. The

scale were adapted in this study for the appropriate country, with Americans for those in the

United States and British for those in the United Kingdom.

1. Many Americans avoid Muslims.

2. Americans are suspicious of Muslims.

3. In general, Americans trust Muslims.*

4. Overall, only few Americans are afraid of Islam.*

5. Most Americans feel safe among Muslims.*

6. Many Americans get nervous in the presence of Muslims.

7. A lot of Americans are afraid that Muslims are going are going to take over the United

States.

8. Many Americans fear the islamization of the United States.

9. A lot of Americans consider Islam a threat to American values.

10. American media always presents Muslims as dangerous people.

11. Islam is always presented as a threat to American culture in the media.

12. American media spreads a lot of fear of Muslims and Islam.

General fear: items 1-6; Fear of islamization: items 7-9; Islamophobia in the media: items 10-

12; * Reversed item

 104

Appendix B: Multi-Religion Identity Measure

The Multi-Religion Identity Measure (MRIM) assess ones religious identity across religions in a

multidimensional manner in. three subscales: Religious Affirmation and Belonging, Religious

Identity Achievement, and Religious Faith and Practices. It is a 15 item Likert Scale with the

following options: 0 (not applicable), 1 (not at all), 2 (very slightly), 3 (slightly), 4 (moderately),

5 (strongly), 6 (very strongly), and 7 (absolutely).

1. I am happy that I belong to my religion.

2. I have developed confidence in my religion and do not believe anyone is likely to change

my religious faith.

3. The place of worship of my religion is important to me.

4. I have a strong sense of belonging to my religion.

5. My religion confuses me.*

6. I believe prayer is an inspiring practice.

7. I am proud of my religion and it accomplishments.

8. I have not found for myself a satisfying life style which is based on my religion.*

9. I feel a weak attachment towards my religion.*

10. God is not real to me.*

11. I have established a clear view on my lifestyle that is acceptable to my religion.

12. I do not participate in rituals of my religion.*

13. I have spent much time exploring my religion such as its rituals, faith, morals, history,

and traditions.

14. My belief in God is important to me.

15. I am not positive about my religion.*

 105

The total score is derived by reversing the negative items (*), summing across items, and

obtain the mean. Religious Affirmation and Belonging: items 1, 4, 7, 9, 15; Religious

Identity Achievement: items 2, 5, 8, 11, 13; and Religious Faith and Practices: items 3, 6, 10,

12, 14