PLURALISM AS PREDICTOR OF AGGRESION TOWARD OTHER RELIGIOUS PARTICIPANTS. (Study Among Students Of Faculty Of Psychology UKSW)

Satya Wacana Christian University, Indonesia)

Berta Esti Ari Prasetya

Faculty of Psychology, Satya Wacana Christian University

Abstract

This research investigated whether belief in relativism-pluralism and dialogue-pluralism are predictive of aggression towards other religious participants among students of higher education, in this case, Faculty of Psychology, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia.  A survey method using questionnaires were used in collecting the data. There were 324 students participated. The result of correlational analyses showed that belief in relativism-pluralism was negatively correlated with aggression towards other religious participants (r=-.156, p<.05); the belief in dialogue-pluralism was also negatively correlated with aggression towards other religious participants (r=-.640, p<.05). The regression analysis of the variables yielded relativism-pluralism and dialogue-pluralism were predictive of the variance in aggression towards other religious participants (R=.640; R²⁼.41; F=112.04;  p<.05) and accounted for 41% of its variance. The dialogue-pluralism alone was predictive of the variance in aggression towards other religious participants          (t= -14,52;    Beta= -1,286) and accounted for 39% of its variance. Although the relativism-pluralism was negatively correlated with aggression towards other religious participants, but it is not predictive of the aggression towards other religious participants.

Keywords: Belief in relativism-pluralism, Belief in dialogue-pluralism, and aggression towards other religious participants.  

I. INTRODUCTION

Religious conflicts have long been existed for ages and centuries. The persecution of early Christian by the Roman or of Jews/Muslims during the Crusade, are but two old religious conflicts recorded in history (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2003). Lately, the terrorist attack on September 11 at the World Trade Center in the US, violence in Northern Ireland, and in Indonesia, clash between adherents of Muslims and Christians in Ambon (Maluku) and Poso (Sulawesi) and other areas in Indonesia, proofed that conflicts accompanied with aggression and violence in the name of religion still exists.

History has recorded a number of devastating problems and sufferings due to conflicts of inter-religions. In Indonesia alone, thousands of people lost their lives, as recorded in inter-religious conflicts in Maluku, at least 4,000 people in Maluku and in South Sulawesi have lost their lives, with the victims divided roughly equally between Muslims and Christians (Erari, 2000). Thousands others also lost their loved ones, their homes and other belongings, suffer from traumas, hatred and even lost their trust in humanity. Considering this, it is imperative to study about inter-religion aggression in order to avoid it and find ways in promoting peace and harmony among religions adherents, especially in Indonesia, where the state embraces several religions live together under the ideology of Pancasila (Jakarta Post, 2008).

Every religion has its own values that in peripheral level sometimes seems to be conflicted to one another, such as in its basic theistic systems, its ultimate goals, its rituals, its values, etc. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007). These differences may raise conflicts among religious adherents and in turns lead to aggression towards other religious participants. Aggression towards other religious participants is tendency to harm other religious participants, as a way of maintaining a sense of superiority over other religion.

Aggression toward other religious participants is easily provoked when there is no understanding among different religious participants, especially when stereotypes, prejudices, intolerance, were spread among them. Stereotype is a generalization about a group’s characteristic that does not take into account any variation from one individual to the next (Halonen & Santrock, 1999). Woolf & Hulsizer (2003) proposed that stereotyping is one way to promote stigmatization, which is the first step of the path of inter-religious violence. Starting with the increase in stereotyping and derogating images of the out-group, the process continue with the out group is more identified with negative attributes, and demonized. In this sense, the out group may be seen as a threat to the individual’s religion.

Woolf & Hulsizer (2003) proposed that perceived threat orientation is one of the patterns that cause violence or aggression towards other religious adherents. This perceived threat orientation may occur both in the absence of information and in the face of distorted knowledge (Woolf&Hulsizer). Regarding to this, the information and an accurate knowledge about other religions can help to hinder negative stereotyping about other religion. Getting enough information and accurate knowledge is possible only when individual is willing to humbly learning about other religion. Even so, enough information and accurate knowledge about other religion could be meaningless in lessening inter-religion conflicts if the person does not have enough respect to differences. Instead, it will even develop negative perspective towards other religion and feeling of supremacy over other religion. Having enough information, and accurate knowledge about other religion, and having enough respect to them may take place only when an individual is willing to have a dialogue with other religious adherents, and learn from each other without attempting to convince each other of the correctness of their individual set of beliefs, but respect each other’s belief. All of these are expressions of dialogue-pluralism.

Woolf & Hulsizer (2003) also asserted that religious violence is correlated with a group’s acceptance of an ideology of religious supremacy. The member of a religious group view themselves as innately superior over the other religious group, believe that their religious belief is truer, better, more fulfilling than other religious belief. As opposite from that, those who believe in relativism-pluralism believe that all religions are legitimate, valid, and true, equal in their value. Having this values, it is plausible that they do not need to create conflicts with other religion since they believe that all religion are one and that they are all ultimately the same and all equally good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism).  

Students of higher education are potential agents in promoting peace and harmony among religious participants. At the same time they can be agents of spreading hates among religious participants as well, as it was noted that hate organizations is now targeting youth for recruitment (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2003). Therefore more attentions need to be given to researches among this population in order to empower these potential agents in promoting peace around the world.

Taken all together, this study is interested in investigating whether belief in relativism-pluralism and dialogue-pluralism are predictive of aggression towards other religious participants among students of higher education. In this study, students of Faculty of Psychology, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia was chosen to be the population of the study conducted, considering that many students from many different ethnics and regions in Indonesia as well as from different religions have come to study in this university as it is called “Mini Indonesia”. It is hoped that this study can be one of preliminary studies for other broader studies on pluralism and aggression towards other religious participants.

 

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This research aimed to answer this following question:

“Do belief in relativism-pluralism and dialogue-pluralism act as predictors in aggression towards other religious participants, especially in the Faculty of Psychology, Satya Wacana Christian University?”

III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A. Religious Pluralism

1. Definition of Religious Pluralism 

Christian Wolff (1679-1754) was the first who used the term of pluralism. It was popularized later by William James in "The Will to Believe" (Ucko, 2001). In its original term it denotes any metaphysical theory, which claims that reality consists of a multiplicity of distinct, fundamental entities and is distinguished from related —isms: monism, the view that one kind of thing exists, and dualism, the view that two kinds of things exist. Today, the term of pluralism is used in different purpose. This study will focus pluralism in terms of religious pluralism. 

Oftentimes, religious pluralism is confused with religious plurality. Plurality is a religious diversity. It is a recognition of the fact that there are many different faith groups active in the country or town. It is a statistical fact according to data collected by census offices and public opinion pollsters, such as how many religions or denominators exist, how many religious participants etc. ((http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki / Religious_pluralism).

In responding to this diversity, people may react in number of ways. Such as:

a)      Religious exclusive, when this person believes the religious perspective of only one basic theistic system (for instance, only one of the major world religions) or only one of the variants within a basic theistic system (for instance, within Christianity) to be the truth or at least closer to the truth than any other religious perspective (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007). Fundamentalist exclusivist believes that other religions might have elements of truth, but they are largely false, and are often viewed as rivals to the one true religion, even seen as having satanic or demonic force. (http://www.usip.org/events/2006/1121_religious_education.html#related). For example, in Christianity, exclusivist believes that people are saved only through a clear confession of Jesus Christ (Sunquist, 1999).

b)      Religious inclusive.  They regard their own faith tradition as the only completely true religion, but other religions are not completely wrong either. They see other religion as "reflect aspects of, or to constitute approaches to, that final truth." Other religions are thus viewed as incomplete or partially developed faiths. (http://www.usip.org/events/2006/1121_religious_education.html#related. )    In Christianity, for example, inclusivist believes that people are saved only by Jesus Christ, but Jesus saved even through other religions and traditions; all are included in Jesus’ salvific work (Sunquist, 1999).  

c)      Religious Pluralism. They believe that all religions are legitimate, valid, and true -- when viewed from within their particular culture. All faith traditions are deserving of respect.  http://www.usip.org/events/2006/1121_religious_education.html#related. In Christianity for example, people believe that there are many paths to salvation, and following Jesus is only one of them. (Sunquist, 1999). 

Today, the term pluralism has been developed from its original definition. To limit the discussion, the term will be defined using the terms that become the interest of this study:

a) Pluralism in terms of relativism, it means that they believe that all religions are legitimate, valid, and true, equal in their value and that none of the religions gives access to absolute truth.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism). Mc Dowell, simply put it in the term “religious pluralism” which claims that every single individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle, and truth claims are equal” (as cited in Al-Jawi, 2006).  

b)      Pluralism in terms of dialogue it means that they have willingness to learn about other religions, but does not require relinquishing the distinctiveness of one’s own tradition of faith to reach the “lowest common” denominator. Religious pluralism in this sense then, is more of acknowledging the deepest differences, rather than hiding it (Eck, 2006a). Mc Dowell  acknowledge it as social pluralism, which means “respecting others beliefs and practices without sharing them”. (as cited in Al-Jawi, 2006)

To give more understanding of the term investigated in this study, a review will be dedicated to these two different kinds of pluralism:

2. Belief in Relativism-Plurality

Religious pluralism in term of relativism, means accepting other religions' validity:  It involves accepting the beliefs taught by religions other that his own as valid. It may involve: a) Religions are all legitimate and valid, b) Religions teach multiple truths -- all valid, c) Religions are equally valid, d) Religions converge on a single truth, e) Religious truths are relative, f) Religious truths are different responses to the divine. (www.religioustolerance.org/rel_plur1.htm).

Pluralism in terms of relativism stated that all religions are one, that they are all ultimately the same and all equally good (Frawley, 2005). Different religion is looked upon as merely alternative ways to reach the same goal, as little more than different names for the same thing. In an extreme case, pluralism in terms of relativism may transforms into syncretism, which try to mix different religions together.

Belief is a feeling of certainty that something exists, is true or is good. In relation to religion it is the view about that religion (Collins Cobuild- Lingea Lexicon ver 3.1). Belief in relativism-pluralism then is accepting the notion that all religions are equally valid, ultimately the same and equally good, therefore none of the religions is better than the other.  Often times in practice, people who belief in this pluralism fall in relativism, which is the stance of people who essentially are agnostic about their own faith. They make few or no claim about the correctness of their faith, or of someone else's faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_pluralism/archive_1)

3. Belief in Dialogue-Pluralism

Dialogue-pluralism is religious pluralism that involves inter-religious dialogue: it refers to where individuals of different religions dialogue and learn from each other without attempting to convince each other of the correctness of their individual set of beliefs (cited from: www.religioustolerance.org/rel_plur1.htm). This belief is originated from the thought that pluralism in any field does not mean that all alternatives are the same but that individual has different choices, which may not all be good or equal (Frawley, 2005). Furthermore Frawley asserted that pluralism in this sense does not aim to reduce all religions to a common model or mold it as one. But, it tries to let the differences stand out as they are and does not seek to cover them over with a veil of unity. In this case, differences or even contrary is welcome. What valued most is to seek truth or God in the way it is meaningful to the person. 

Those who belief in this kind of religious pluralism, hold that their faith is "true". They believe that their religion is the most complete and accurate revelation of the divine available (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism), yet they also belief that there should be freedom in the pursuit of the spiritual life, even if it allows others to arrive at a different understanding of truth than what the individual himself honor (Frawley, 2005).  Eck (2006a) claims that this kind of pluralism, like Horace Kallen in the early twentieth century, will allow people with all differences and angularities of their religions, to be themselves and hold their beliefs and contributing in their way to the “orchestra” of the civilization.

Furthermore, Eck (2006b) asserted that there are things that need to be considered as part of pluralism. It is an energetic engagement with diversity, the active seeking of understanding across lines of differences, an encounter of commitment and it based on dialogue.

In short, believe in dialogue-pluralism refers to the acceptance of the notion that there are differences among religion, and even that the individual believes that his own religion as the most complete, yet he acknowledge and respect other religion differences, willing to have a dialogue with other religious adherents to get a more understanding of other religion.

  

B. Aggression towards Other Religious Participants.

1. Definition and the Origin of Aggression towards Other Religious Participants

Human share the ability to be aggressive like other species. But human aggressive have more features that are essentially unknown among other species, one of them is an aggression with religious motivation (Baumeister & Bushman,  2004).   

Aggression is behavior directed toward another individual carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm, that the perpetuator believe that the act can harm the target (even that the actual harm is not required) and that the target is motivated to avoid the behavior (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003). It is a response tendency, when one’s desires are thwarted, one’s goal satisfaction is unfulfilled, aggressive impulse arise as one way of trying to remove the thwarting parties to get what someone want (Baumeister & Bushman, 2004). Even so, frustration does not always lead to aggression and not aggression is the result of frustration (Huffman, Vernoy & Vernoy, 1997).

Furthermore, (Baumeister and Bushman 2004) asserted that aggressive tendency is not an antisocial expression, but more of a representative of effective though flawed strategies for dealing with social life. In fact, in some cases, it is a way to build someone’s social position. Baumeister & Bushman asserted that it is also a way that is used to maintain the sense of superiority over others and intimidating others who might interfere with the desire. It this sense, aggression may present itself to be a way of influencing others and get satisfaction.

Taken all together, aggression toward other religious participants is tendency to harm other religious participants, as a way of maintaining a sense of superiority over other religion.

2. Religion as the Source of Conflicts & Aggressions

The investigation on the role of religion often times encounter two conflicting themes. Stark and Bainbridge (cited in Jensen, 2006), argue that inhibition to a wide range of forms of deviance is contributed by church attendance. In this case, religious institutions, beliefs, and practices are depicted as discouraging crime, either directly or indirectly through links with other social forces.

Further more, Jensen (2006) reviewed that on the other hand, some dimensions of religiosity have been proposed as sources of violence in one form or another. When religious belief systems are characterized by absolute truth claims, notions of a cosmic struggle between God and the Devil (cosmic dualism), and rigid dichotomies between good and evil, religion tend to become destructive (Kimball as cited in Jensen, 2006). Unnithan, Huff-Corzine, Corzine, and Whitt have extended this line of argument by proposing, “adherence to a fundamentalist doctrine would increase the chances of attributing the causes of one’s failures to the malevolent acts of others, thus resulting in aggression being directed outward rather than inward” (as cited in Jensen, 2006).

Jensen (2006) extended his argument by asserting that when religion is claimed to be the absolute truth, and considered as struggles between benevolent and malevolent forces, moral struggles between “good-guys” and “bad-guys”, dichotomous choices between good or evil, then the result will be that there is little or no inclination to consider any negotiation. When flexibility is lost, then dealing with lesser conflicts and struggles in everyday life will also be suffered. In this condition, this kind of religious cosmology with moral “wars” and “dueling deities” will set the stage for conflicts, facilitates interpersonal wars, and encourages people in conflict to think in terms of dueling contenders for righteousness. The conflicts can even escalate and involving many more people all over the world since the religion solidarity may transcend local even national boundaries (Bahar, 2007). Especially when the people believe that the act of aggression will get a reward from the deity.

3. Path of Religious Violence

    Violence is an extreme form of aggression. Wars and homicide in the name of religion are the examples of a religious violence as the extreme form of religious aggression. Woolf and Hulsizer (2003) proposed that the path to religious violence follow a parallel steps. The first path starts by making the targeted other religious adherents experiencing the loss of opportunity and privilege such as destroying their businesses, their opportunity to pray etc. If the targeted group denies it, the first step will be followed by the second step which is making the targeted group to loss their civil right. Such as making the out group loss their opportunity for a good education, a good job etc. The next step will be making the targeted group losing its human right.  For example they can not get good food, safe place to live, etc. Finally the path will end in making other group loss its existence by eliminating them. Other path is used usually fostered by the religious leader who is believed as conveying the Word of God.

The parallel path follows several steps which are (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2003):

a)      Stigmatization: Starting with the increase in stereotyping and derogating images of the outgroup, the process continue with the outgroup is more identified with negative attributes.

b)      Dehumanization: This dehumanization usually is fostered by the leader, exposing and promoting the stereotypes and negative image of the outgroups using propaganda. The outgroups may be identified with devil or as a seductive evil, and present the outgroups as a emmminent threat to the well-being or an existence of the in-group. This dehumanization is important to diminish the emergence of cognitive dissonance among the people that may occur when individual do something bad to other human beings.

c)      Moral exclusion: The process is continued with process of moral exclusion, which the ingroup view the outgroup as excluded from the normal moral rules that usually applied to the ingroup. The aggression/violence against outgroup then will be excused and described and considered as a holly calling.

d)      Impunity: the aggression is met with acceptance and get the atmosphere of impunity.

C. Relativism-Pluralism and Dialogue-Pluralism as Predictors in Aggression towards Other Religious Participants.

Agression towards other religious participants may be explained through the role of social cognition. Researcher found that people tend to divide up the world into “us” and “them” or in-group and out-group (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2003). Later on, they usually try to sustain positive self-identity by assuring that their in-group is highly valued and distinct from other group, this phenomenon is called “in-group bias”. Aggression is a way that is used to maintain the sense of superiority over others and intimidating others who might interfere with the desire (Baumeister & Bushman, 2004).

It is, therefore, when people couple the extremely positive view of themselves with very negative view of the out-group, this may lead to a latent danger of violence towards out group. But, those who are more balanced of their perception of in-group out-group are less prone to the negative ramification of the in-group bias. The ability to see the out group as good as the in-group may be achieved only by building a dialogue between in-group and out-group. An increase understanding of out-group may decrease feelings of enmity toward out-group (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2003). Referring to this, dialogue pluralism may play a significant role in inhibition of aggression towards other religious participants. As the assertion of Fitzgerald (2006) that the willingness to join inter-religious dialogue that aim to build up good relations among people of different religions and entails increasing mutual knowledge, overcoming prejudices, creating trust, will strengthening bonds of friendship and collaboration to such an extent that detrimental influences coming from outside can be resisted.

Woolf & Hulsizer (2003) proposed that the path of violence is started with promoting stigmatization, by putting stereotype in propaganda and derogating images of the out-group. The process then is continued with the out group is more identified with negative attributes, and demonized. In this sense, the out group may be seen as a threat to the individual’s religion. When out-group is seen as threat, aggression toward other religious participant is easily provoked as what is proposed by Woolf & Hulsizer (2003) that perceived threat orientation is one of the patterns that cause violence or aggression towards other religious adherents.

Woolf & Hulsizer (2003) also asserted that religious violence is correlated with a group’s acceptance of an ideology of religious supremacy. This assertion is in line with what is suggested by Baumeister & Bushman (2004) that aggression is a way that is used to maintain the sense of superiority over others and intimidating others who might interfere with the desire. Those who believe in relativism-pluralism believe that all religions are equally legitimate, valid, and true. Having this values, it is plausible that they do not need to use aggression towards other religion participants since they believe that all religion are one and that they are all ultimately the same and all equally good. It is, therefore, there is no need to boast their supremacy by performing the act of aggression towards other religious participants.  

Hypothesis of the Study:

From the review of literature, the hypothesis that can be formulated for this study is:

“Belief in relativism-pluralism and dialogue-pluralism are significant predictors in aggression towards other religious participants among students of higher education”. Specifically,

1. The stronger the belief of the individual in relativism-pluralism, the lower the tendency of the individual to have aggression towards other religious participants.
2. The stronger the belief of the individual in dialogue-pluralism, the lower the tendency of the individual to have aggression towards other religious participants.    

IV. METHOD

This was an explanatory and correlational type of study that tried to test the hypotheses proposed earlier. A survey method, specifically the questionnaire method, was used in data collection. The advantage of using this method was that it could provide detailed and precise information about large heterogeneous population and could address a much broader range of topics by preparing some questions that could be wide ranging (Singleton & Straits, 1999). Survey method could also be very economical. Furthermore, it could touch on some sensitive questions, social background information, attitudes, beliefs, values, behavior intentions, and some subjective phenomenon, which were the nature of the issues of this study. Therefore, the survey method seemed to be the most suitable data gathering method for this study.   

This study dwelled on subjective evaluations on the part of the participants. It was based on self-report measurements. The participants of the study were asked to fill up questionnaires that were used for data analysis. The participants were also asked to fill up Personal Data Questionnaires, to give information about their sociodemographic background.

Participants

The subjects of this study were students of Faculty of Psychology at Satya Wacana Christian University. There were 324 respondents who participated in this study. Most of the respondents were female (234 respondents=72%) and only 90 respondents were male (28%). The participants consisted of many religious adherents which were: 203 Protestant adherents (62.7%), Catholic adherents (14.2%), 71 Moslem adherents  (21.9%), 1 Hindu adherents (0.3%), 3 Buddhist adherents (0.9%).    

Measures

The participants were asked to answer three questionnaires which were: (a) Relativism-Pluralism Questionnaire, (b) Dialogue-Pluralism Questionnaire, (c) Aggression towards Other Religious Participants Questionnaire. All questionnaires utilized a Likert Scale style. The participants were asked to give ratings ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with the statements in the questionnaires reflecting their belief in relativism-pluralism, dialogue-pluralism and their tendency to be aggressive toward other religious participants. The scoring for unfavorable items was reversed.  

(a)    Relativism-Pluralism Questionnaire  

This questionnaire tried to measure participant’s belief on relativism-pluralism, it means pluralism in terms of relativism, which contains belief that all religion are equal in their value, (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki / Religious_pluralism), it is ultimately the same and equally good (Frawley, 2005), that the beliefs taught by religions other than his own as valid as his own religion. It may involve: a) Religions are all legitimate and valid, b) Religions teach multiple truths -- all valid, c) Religions are equally valid, d) Religions converge on a single truth, e) Religious truths are relative f) Religious truths are different responses to the divine. After conducting reliability test by checking its item-total correlation using the SPSS 12.00 program, it was revealed that there were 14 valid items left, with item-total correlation coefficient ranging from .32 to .69. These valid items were used for data analysis. With this total number of items, the total score ranged from 14 for the lowest possible to 56 for the highest possible. The higher the score reflected the stronger the participant’s belief in pluralism in terms of relativism. The result of reliability testing showed the Cronbach’s Alpha of .864

(b) Dialogue-Pluralism Questionnaire.

This questionnaire aimed to measure participant’s belief on religious pluralism which involves inter-religious dialogue: it refers to the acceptance of the notion that there are differences among religion, and even that the individual belief that his own religion as the most complete, yet he acknowledge and respect other religion differences, willing to have a dialogue with other religious adherents to get a more understanding of other religioan. Reliability test was conducted using the SPSS 12.00 checking for its item-total correlation. It resulted 12 valid items that were retained for data analysis, with item-total correlation coefficient ranging from .26 to .56. With this total number of items, the total score ranged from 12 for the lowest possible to 48 for the highest possible. The higher the score reflected the stronger the belief of the participant in pluralism which involves inter- religion dialogue. The result of reliability testing showed the Cronbach’s Alpha of .817.

(b)   Aggression toward Other Religious Participants Questionnaire.

This questionnaire tried to measure the individual’s tendency to harm other religious participants, as a way of maintaining a sense of superiority over other religion.  This questionnaire was a modification of the questionnaire firstly developed by Setiawati (2007). The item-total correlation was used to check for its reliability, using SPSS 12.00 and resulted 28 valid items that were kept for data analysis. The item-total correlations were ranging from .30 to .59. The result of reliability testing showed the Cronbach’s Alpha of .886. The total score of the questionnaire ranged from 28 for the lowest possible to 112 for the highest possible. The higher score reflected the more the individual’s tendency to be aggressive toward other religious participants.

    

V. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The result of correlational analyses showed that belief in relativism-pluralism was negatively correlated with aggression towards other religious participants (r=-.156, p<.05). It means that the stronger the person’s belief in relativism-pluralism the less likely the person to be aggressive towards other religious participants, at the opposite the weaker the belief in relativism-pluralism, the more likely the person to be aggressive towards other religious participants. The study also found that belief in dialogue-pluralism was also negatively correlated with aggression towards other religious participants (r=-.640, p<.05) meaning, the stronger the person’s belief in dialogue-pluralism, the less likely the person to be aggressive towards other religious participants. At the opposite, the weaker the person’s belief in dialogue-pluralism, the more likely the person to be aggressive towards other religious participants. These results confirm the hypothesis proposed in this study.

The regression analysis of the variables yielded relativism-pluralism and dialogue-pluralism were predictive of the variance in aggression towards other religious participants and accounted for 41% of its variance. The dialogue-pluralism alone was predictive of the variance in aggression towards other religious participants (t= -14,52; Beta= -1,286) and accounted for 39% of its variance. Although the relativism-pluralism was negatively correlated with aggression towards other religious participants, but it is not predictive of the aggression towards other religious participants.

This result is in line with the assertion of Woolf & Hulsizer (2003) that religious violence is correlated with a group’s acceptance of an ideology of religious supremacy. Since those who believe in relativism-pluralism believe that all religions are equally legitimate, valid, and true, it is plausible that they have no need to maintain the sense of superiority over other religious group, therefore do not need to use aggression towards other religious participants.

Relativism-pluralism acknowledged that there is religious diversity in the world. Quinn (cited in Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, 2004) proposed that acknowledged diversity can foster tolerance. Individual's justification for believing that her religious perspective is superior to the perspectives of others will be weakened by  serious reflection on the undeniable reality of religious diversity, later on, this weakened justification may lead to greater religious tolerance — for example, will lead to a more accepting, less confrontational attitude toward others, less aggressive towards other religious group.

As it was mentioned earlier in the review of the study, the role of social cognition may be used to explain aggression towards other religious participants. The tendency of group to divide up the world into “us” and “them” or in-group and out-group leads to the phenomenon of in-group bias, where the individual view their in-group is highly valued and distinct from other group. Especially when people couple the extremely positive view of themselves with very negative view of the out-group, this idea risk a latent danger of violence towards out group (Woolf & Hulsizer, 2003). Effort to maintain sense of superiority over others may use aggression to intimidate others (Baumeister & Bushman, 2004).

To avoid abovementioned problem, individual must get a better and accurate knowledge about the out group, therefore they can gain a better appreciation for other religious group. Getting an accurate knowledge about other religious group may be achieved by using inter-religious dialogue. Dialogue may decrease feelings of enmity toward out-group (Woolf & Hulsizer,2003). As Fitzgerald (2006) asserted that the willingness to join inter-religious dialogue that aim to build up good relations among people of different religions and entails increasing mutual knowledge, overcoming prejudices, creating trust, will strengthening bonds of friendship and collaboration, so that the aggression towards other religious group can be prevented.

Woolf & Hulsizer (2003) argue that perceived threat orientation is one of the patterns that cause violence or aggression towards other religious adherents. This may occur both in absence of information and distorted knowledge of other religion.  It is therefore, mutual dialogue as what is advocated by dialogue-pluralism may play important role in preventing the absence of information and distorted knowledge of other religion. As also mentioned in World Council of Churches (WCC) Guidelines on Dialogue (as cited in Ucko, 2001), "One of the functions of dialogue is to allow participants to describe and witness to their faith in their own terms. This is of primary importance since self-serving descriptions of other peoples' faith are one of the roots of prejudice, stereotyping, and condescension. Dialogue gives an opportunity for a mutual questioning of the understanding partners have about themselves and others. It is out of a reciprocal willingness to listen and learn that significant dialogue grows”.

Although both of the variables, belief in relativism-pluralism and belief in dialogue-pluralisms correlated with aggression towards other religious participants, the result showed that it was only the belief in dialogue-pluralisms which acted as the predictor. This may due to the fact that, often times in practice, people who belief in relativism-pluralism, took the stance of people who essentially are agnostic about their own faith. They make few or no claim about the correctness of their faith, or of someone else's faith. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_pluralism/archive_1). Therefore it is possible that either their belief is strong or less strong, their tendency to be aggressive towards other religious participants has no difference, therefore not enough predictive to the occurrence of aggression towards other religious participants simply because their being agnostic tendency. Frawley (2005) also argue that making all religions the same is a denial of pluralism and can breed another form of intolerance.

The descriptive analyses showed that the mean of the participants’ score on the aggression towards other religious participants was 49.6 (SD= 9.5). If the total scores possible of the scale is divided into five categories, which are very low (for total score score of 28 to 44.8);     low (for total score of 44.9 to 61.6), medium (for score 61.7 to 78.4); high (for total score of 78.5 to 95.2) and very high (for the total score of 95.3 to 112), by looking at the mean acquired, the participants’ score can be classified as the low tendency of aggression towards other religious participants. This may give hope that among students of higher education, especially in Faculty of Psychology, Satya Wacana Christian University, they already try to live in harmony with other religious participants. The nature of the faculty of psychology, that learn about differences among people may help the students to learn that everybody can have their own values and religions that all need to be respected, and therefore they tend to be less aggressive towards other religious participants. The fact that most of the participants were female (72%) may also shaped this low tendency of aggression as it was found in earlier studies that females tend to be less aggressive due to the small amount of testosterone hormone in females (Halonen & Santrock, 1999).

In the variable of belief in relativism-pluralism, the result of descriptive analysis showed that the mean of the participants was 38.8 (SD 6.68). If the total scores possible of the scale is divided into five categories, which were:  very weak (for total score of 14 to 22.4); weak (for the total score of 22.5 to 30.8), medium (for the total score of 30.9 to 39.2); strong (for the total score of 39.3 to 47.6) and very strong (for the total score of 47.7 to 56), therefore the mean of the participants’ total score fall in the medium category. It means that the participants neither agree nor disagree with the idea of relativism-pluralism. This may reflect that they are not very sure yet whether they have to accept that all religions are equally valid or only one is valid. This condition may due to the fact that most of the participants are in late adolescence and transition to adulthood. Fowler (1981) suggested that in late adolescence, or in transition to adulthood, individuals are becoming capable of taking full responsibility for their religious beliefs. They start to explore questions about the validity of the religious doctrine that was taught to them before and try to ponder if there are other religious beliefs which are better than what they have known before. Therefore when they were asked if all of the religions are equal, they can not be sure yet, either to accept or to refuse the notion.

The participants’ answer is more salient in variable belief in dialogue-pluralism. The mean of the participants was 38.8 (SD 4.86). If the total score possible of the scale is categorized in five categorization, which were: very weak (for total score of 12 to 19.2); weak (for the total score of 19.3 to 26.4), medium (for the total score of 26.5 to 33.6); strong (for the total score of 33.7 to 40.8) and very strong (for the total score of 40.9 to 48), then the mean of the participant fell in high category. It means that in general, the participants have strong belief in dialogue-pluralism. This result may give hope that the students of higher education, especially in Faculty of Psychology, Satya Wacana Christian University tend to hold strongly that their faith is "true". They believe that their religion is the most complete and accurate revelation of the divine available, yet they also belief that there should be freedom in the pursuit of the spiritual life, even if it allows others to arrive at a different understanding of truth than what the individual himself honor. Even that the individual strongly believes that his own religion as the most complete, yet he/she acknowledges and respects other religion differences, willing to have a dialogue with other religious adherents to get a more understanding of other religion. The fact that they are in psychology faculty may influence this tendency too. In psychology, they have learnt that communication is very important to build relationship and to have deeper understanding of the out-groups, therefore they tend to agree that inter- religious dialogue too can be an important tool in understanding other religious participants. In psychology they also have learnt how to still show respect and appreciation towards other people who have different value from them. It is therefore, the idea of dialogue-pluralism is not difficult to accept.

Conclusion and Suggestions

This research found that belief in relativism-pluralism and dialogue-pluralism together can be the predictors of aggression towards other religious participants. Even so, independently, it was only belief in dialogue-pluralism is predictive of aggression towards other religious participants.

Considering the result, it is more important to foster the acceptance of dialogue-pluralism in order to prevent aggression towards other religious participants, to build a harmonious relationship among different religion adherents in the world rather than just asking them to believe that all religions are the same. Dialogue-pluralism accepts that there are differences among religion, and even that individual believes that his own religion as the most complete, yet he acknowledges and respects other religion differences, and is willing to have a dialogue with other religious adherents to get a more understanding of other religion. Education systems in Indonesia higher education must also play role in advocating and facilitating mutual inter-religious dialogue, so that the students may have enough information about other religions and accurate knowledge about it, so that religious violence can be avoided.  

REFERENCES

Al-Jawi, M.S. 2006. Menolak Pluralisme. Retrieved May 7, 2008 from http://www.sidogiri.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=705

Bahar, S. 2007. Konflik Antar Umat Beragama dan Etnik. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from http://www.saafroedinbahar.grahacitra.com/details.php?recordID=43

Anderson, C.A. & Huesmann, L.R. 2003. The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

Eck, D. L. 2006a. On Common Ground: World Religions in America. USA: Columbia University Press.

________. 2006b. What Is Pluralism. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.pluralism.org/pluralism/what_is_pluralism.php

Fitzgerald, M. 2006. The Promise of Interreligious Dialogue for a World in Conflict.  Presented in the conference, "In Our Time: Interreligious Relations in a Divided World," co-sponsored by Brandeis Unversity and by Boston College through its Center for Christian-Jewish Learning. Retrieved May 12, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/Fitzgerald_16Mar06_Boston_College.htm

Fowler, J.W. 1981. States of Faith: The Psychological of Human Development and the Quest for Faith. New York: Harper Collins.

Frawley, D. 2005. A Hindu Call for Religious Pluralism. Retrieved May 5, 2008 from http://www.dharmacentral.com/articles/plural.htm

Halonen, J.S. & Santrock, J.W. 1999. Psychology: Context and Applications. Boston: McGraw Hill College.

Huffman K., Vernoy, M. & Vernoy, J. 1997. Psychology in Action. Singapore: John Willey & Sons.

Jakarta Post. 2008. The Threat to Pluralism. The Voice of Reason: A collection of the Best Editorial of The Jakarta Post 1983-2008.  Jakarta: The Jakarta Post.

Jensen, G.F. 2006. Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates Among Nations. Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, 1-14. 

Wikipedia. 2001 Religious pluralism. Retrieved April 24, 2008.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism

Erari, K.P. (2000). The Crisis in Indonesia. Reformed World, Vol. 50. Retrieved May 23, 2008 from http://www.warc.ch/miu/rw004/erari.html.

Woolf, L.M. & Hulsizer, M.R. 2003. Intra and Inter Religious Hate and Violence: A Psychosocial Model.Journal of Hate Studies Vol 2:5, 5-25.

Setiawati, Y. 2007. Hubungan antara Tingkat Religiusitas dengan Perilaku Agresi Terhadap Pemeluk Agama Lain di Kalangan Mahasiswa STAIN (Sekolah TInggi Agama Islam Negri) Salatiga. Unpublished thesis, Faculty of Psychology, Satya Wacana Christian University.

Singleton, R., & Straits, B. C. (1999). Approaches to social research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007. Religious Pluralism. Retrieved May 24, 2008 from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-pluralism/

Ucko, H. 2001. Faith in Pluralism of Faiths: The Gifts of Interfaith Solidarity. Retrieved May 24, 2008 from http://www.thewitness.org/agw/ucko.html

…. Definition of Religious Pluralism. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_pluralism/archive_1