Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Aug 12.
Published in final edited form as: J Appl Soc Sci (Boulder). 2020 Sep 1;14(2):195–211. doi: 10.1177/1936724420947339

Evaluation and Revision of an Instrument Measuring Attitudes toward the Amish

Cory Anderson 1, Lee Decker 2
PMCID: PMC8360342  NIHMSID: NIHMS1720786  PMID: 34394800

Abstract

The attitudes non-members hold toward the Amish—or any ethnic, racial, and religious group—has consequences for that population, from criminal victimization to an ability to exercise human rights. Given the rapid growth and expansion of the Amish in North America, an effective tool is needed to measure public attitudes toward the Amish. William McGuigan (2007; 2014) recently led the development of an Attitudes Toward the Amish (ATA) instrument, which was tested in northwestern Pennsylvania. In using the ATA in northeastern Missouri, we encountered problems with the instrument’s operational validity: no significant differences were found in the responses between a university undergraduate population of largely urban/suburban origin and the local rural population when we would otherwise expect differences. We revised the instrument and administered it to the same populations. Of the 16 items in the revised version, 14 were significantly different at the p<.05 level. A factor analysis revealed four components with face validity. Based on these results, we offer the Revised ATA (RATA) as an improved instrument and make recommendations for designing instruments intended to measure attitudes toward out-groups.

Introduction

Documenting prejudicial attitudes is important to identifying and working with intergroup tensions. Yet, the tools to measure attitudes are still relatively underdeveloped, at least in comparison to the theorization of the concept these tools intend to measure, namely prejudice (Correll, et al. 2010; Olson 2009; Olson and Fazio 2003). From an empirical perspective, this is problematic. Concepts must be tested and carefully qualified lest they degenerate into rhetorical devices that themselves serve in-group interests of boundary making (Wimmer 2013). Therefore, scholars must continue to develop and refine tools that accurately measure attitudes, especially for groups that have been historically underrepresented in prejudice research.

The Amish, for example, have received sparse attention from scholars despite the fact that they are a rapidly growing ethnic-religious minority (Colyer et al. 2017). The Amish have been at the forefront of a number of high profile conflicts, including issues of private schooling, personal land rights, and hate crime targeting, as well as deal with routine, localized prejudice. The presence of biased attitudes and prejudices in cases of conflict has been seldom investigated. One reason among others may be that no tool has been available to measure attitudes toward this minority.

Seeing this gap, William McGuigan took a widely used instrument measuring racism toward African Americans and adapted it to create the Attitudes Toward the Amish (ATA) instrument. McGuigan conducted several tests that supported the tool’s reliability and validity (McGuigan 2014; McGuigan and Scholl 2007). Eager to employ this instrument, we administered it to a convenience sample of rural Midwestern residents living around Amish communities. Through this process, we became apprehensive about the instrument’s operational validity, i.e., that the tool measurements have real and practical application.

In this article, we first explore the subject of Amish and prejudice, including a review of McGuigan’s important work on the ATA. We then statistically demonstrate that the ATA has issues of operational validity through our first phase of survey administration. We then describe, item-by-item, how we developed the Revised Attitudes Toward the Amish (RATA) tool and then statistically demonstrate its improved operational validity via a second phase of data collection and analysis.

The Amish and Measures of Prejudice

The Amish are a rapidly growing, social group in rural North America, part of the broader Anabaptist religious tradition and ethnically of Swiss-German ancestry (Enninger 1986). In 2010, the decennial U.S. Religion Census reported 101,321 Amish members, 241,356 total adherents, and 1,755 congregations (Grammich, et al. 2012). The Amish population doubles at around every 20 years (Donnermeyer, 2015), quite exceptional for any group in North America. This growth means that they are constantly in search of inexpensive land in rural areas to establish new communities (Anderson and Kenda, 2015). Consequently, many relatively remote and deeply rooted rural communities are coming into contact with the Amish for the first time.

Because of the Amish’s conspicuous lifestyle—e.g. grooming and garment patterns, non-motorized transportation modes, and architecture—they are easily identifiable as a group. Distinctiveness (perceived or actual) is necessary for members of any group to receive categorical out-grouping and othering treatment from non-group members (McGuigan and Scholl, 2007). While many non-Amish carry positive images of the Amish—perpetuated in part through tourism and product marketing (Harasta, 2014)—others carry prejudices that may lead to institutional discrimination through local governing policies (Fisher, 1996; Pratt 2004) or individual hate crimes, such as targeting Amish homes for theft, damaging parked buggies, or throwing debris from motor vehicles at buggies (Byers and Crider, 2002; Friesen and Friesen, 1996, ch. 7; Smith, 1961, ch. 22). Hence, when feelings run high on touch-button issues—including horse droppings on the road, zoning enforcement, animal treatment, and rejection of safety recommended devices1 (Park, 2018)—public agents and service providers may find a tool to measure local attitudes toward the Amish useful, delineating personal attitudes and inter-group tensions from purely pragmatic challenges.

Responding to this demand, William McGuigan and Carol Scholl (2007) developed the Attitudes Toward the Amish (ATA) scale to quantify attitudes. He uses the term ���attitudes” to refer covertly to prejudice and bias. The ATA is based on survey items from the “Old-Fashioned and Modern Racism” scale (MacConahay 1986), which has been revised and reapplied to other groups. In its original form, this racism scale measured white people’s perceptions of African Americans. Participants are asked to indicate how much they agree with statements on a five-point Likert scale. The instrument has items to measure both subtle racism—indirect or passive negative attitudes toward an ethnic/racial category—and blatant racism—direct and undisguised aggression toward an ethnic/racial category. This subtle/blatant distinction is capable of probing three prejudice typologies—blatant and subtle, just subtle, and neither (Pettigrew and Meertens 1995).

MaConahay’s Modern Racism Scale (MRS) has been adopted and revised to address other groups, including Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, among others. McGuigan’s (2007) adoption of the ATA followed the same format, with questions changed or reworded to predict the participant’s thoughts toward the Amish. Adopting and revising an instrument for a different group requires additional validation tests.

McGuigan investigated the instrument’s construct validity, internal consistency, and temporal stability. For construct validity – i.e., the ability to measure what in instrument sets out to measure, in this case prejudice – McGuigan administered several well-established scales simultaneously with the ATA to test for correlations in predicted directions (McGuigan and Scholl 2007; McGuigan 2014). The scales included the following.

  1. Contact items: measures the contact hypothesis (Allport 1954), that more contact with an out-group (e.g. non-Amish people with the Amish) is associated with lower levels of prejudice, as measured by the ATA in this case.

  2. The Need for Cognition Scale (NCS): assesses the extent to which people enjoy thinking (Cacioppo & Petty 1982), which has been negatively correlated with racial prejudice (Waller 1993).

  3. The Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale: investigates the extent to which individuals prefer inequality among groups (Pratto et al. 1994), with such preferences being positively correlated with prejudice.

  4. The Belief in Equality Inventory (BEI): ranks people’s belief that ability and potential are evenly distributed among populations, with greater belief negatively associated with prejudice (Gray et al. 1994).

  5. The Modified Godfrey-Richman I.S.M. scale: measures prejudice towards religious groups in general (Godfrey, Richman, and Withers 2000).

McGuigan administered the ATA, contact-related items, the NCS, the SDO scale, and the BEI to a convenience sample of 89 non-Amish adults solicited from customers at three local stores around New Wilmington, PA, a small college town at the center of the largest Amish community in western Pennsylvania. Significant correlations between these scales and the ATA were in predicted directions (McGuigan and Scholl 2007; McGuigan 2014). This experiment was later replicated at Ball State University among students from Amish and non-Amish counties in Indiana (137 responses), yielding similar results (Byers and McGuigan 2017). In a separate study, the ATA and Modified Godfrey-Richman I.S.M. scale were administered to a convenience sample of 74 upper level college students, with correlations in the expected directions (McGuigan 2014).

To test for internal consistency – i.e., the agreement of different survey items designed to measure the same phenomena – McGuigan calculated Cronbach’s alphas for these same samples. Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient of similarity between responses to items in which a level of .70 or higher is generally considered acceptable. The New Wilmington sample (α=0.78) (McGuigan and Scholl 2007), the Ball State sample (α=0.86) (Byers and McGuigan 2017), and the upper level college student sample (α=0.80) (McGuigan 2014) all had Cronbach’s alphas falling within ranges that suggested internal reliability of the ATA.

Finally, to test for the ATA’s temporal stability – i.e., the scale’s ability to produce consistent measure regardless of the influence of time – McGuigan (2014) conducted a test-retest study. Two iterations of the ATA were given to 64 undergraduate students. McGuigan found consistent pre- and post-test scores and face-validity of the scale’s items based on two easily interpretable components from a factor analysis.

Because of McGuigan’s extensive testing of validity, we uncritically adopted it with the modest goal of contributing additional data to this small body of existing studies. Our sampling population was residents of rural northeastern Missouri, a region with a number of small Amish communities (Donnermeyer and Anderson, pp. 226, 231). However, during survey administration, verbal feedback from respondents alerted us to potential problems with operational validity, that is, the ATA’s ability to accurately represent respondents’ attitudes. This prompted a literature review, which identified studies that critiqued the original MRS scale’s operational validity. The ATA scale’s statements similarly direct respondents toward socially desirable answers. With the presence of items measuring blatant prejudice, respondents are easily able to discern the purpose of the instrument, especially with questions measuring blatant prejudice, and manipulate their answers to minimize any appearance of prejudice (e.g., Redding 2014; Fielder et al. 2010; Henry and Sears 2002; Sniderman and Piazza 1993; Sniderman and Tetlock 1986). Further research has also argued that the subtle/blatant distinction which the MRS sought to measure is not only unnecessary but that the consequent typologies of prejudice—blatant/subtle, just subtle, and not prejudiced—are not empirically supported (e.g., Arancibia-Martini et. al. 2016; Feilder et al. 2010; Olson 2009; Hamberger and Hewstone 1997; Devine et. al. 1991). One strategy to salvage the blatant/subtle distinction has been to give respondents a limited time to answer questions, but this amendment has been criticized as an ineffective fix (Feilder et al. 2010). We concur with the recent scholarship: blatant items should not be included on scales because it alerts respondents to the survey’s purpose in an era when appearing prejudiced is widely, even if not universally, stigmatized. Furthermore, blatant and subtle are treated as dichotomous, which is problematic.

Allport’s definition and description of subtle prejudice is nevertheless important for improving general prejudice scales. Subtle prejudice is the belief that out-groups will threaten the values of the in-group. Subtle prejudice emphasizes the differences between the in-group and out-group to explain the out-group’s minority status. Those with subtle prejudice have difficulty expressing positive emotions toward the out-group and often avoid complimenting them (Allport 1954). This definition can help guide improvements to scale items.

In our research, we will first demonstrate that the ATA contains problems of operational validity, as others have shown for the MRS; in the initial phase of data collection and analysis, we administered the ATA to two ideologically different populations and found no significant differences between the two groups’ responses. We will then discuss our revisions of the ATA. Finally, we will demonstrate that the Revised ATA instrument better captures respondent attitudes toward the Amish by administering the survey to these two populations and noting significant differences in the responses that capture the distinctive contours of each group’s prejudice.

Survey Revision Process

An Overview of Northeastern Missouri

We began this study as a replication of McGuigan’s targeting a new population: residents of rural northeast Missouri. The regional hub of northeastern Missouri has a population of 17,000. In adjacent counties, county seat populations number not more than several hundred people and population density in outside county seats is low. The regional economy is agriculture-oriented. Residents tend to identify as Republican and socially conservative. The regional hub hosts a public liberal arts university with approximately 6,000 students; this institution is the largest employer in the region. The vast majority of students come from outside the region, namely, Missouri’s two large metropolitan areas, St. Louis and Kansas City. The university population tends to identify as Democratic and socially liberal. A concentration of small Amish communities follows the northeastern Missouri/southeastern Iowa border area, making their presence on highways, in stores, through business dealings, and as land owners conspicuous. Amish communities have grown in recent decades, as only several hundred Amish lived in Missouri and Iowa in the mid-1950s. They are a distinctive ethnic-religious group, especially in social, organizational, and symbolic patterns, and are recognized and treated as such by area researchers and residents (Armer and Radina 2006; Cooksey and Donnermeyer 2013; Elmlinger 2014; Gangel 1971; Hartman 1986; Hawley and Hamilton 1996; Reschly 2000; Schwieder and Schwieder 1975). Based on our experience with the region’s and the university’s population, we proceed with the assumption that northeastern Missouri residents generally have higher levels of contact with the Amish than university students, and that different levels of contact will influence the salience of certain attitudes.

Phase I: Methodology

In Phase I, we started out with the modest goal of using the ATA to contribute additional data to the studies of McGuigan, Scholl, and Byers. Participants in rural areas were selected based on a non-probability convenience sample. Researchers approached the subjects in public rural places, including a passenger train station, farmer’s market, and livestock auction. Only responses to the ATA instrument were recorded. However, respondents frequently made anecdotal comments criticizing the scale itself, and we also began questioning the survey’s ability to accurately represent respondents’ attitudes.

An operationally valid measuring tool should detect significantly different attitudes between two social groups based on their cultural values and amounts of contact. Accordingly, we decided to compare our rural sample to university students. Students were selected based on a random cluster sample of classes. A course list for the university was obtained and ten classes were randomly selected. Surveys were then administered to all of the students in attendance during regular class times at the convenience of their instructors. Because of the verbal feedback received from the rural sample, students were provided an additional page where they were encouraged to discuss their reactions to the survey after taking it.

Phase I: Results

In phase one, 59 rural residents and 169 students participated; the response rate for rural residents was not calculated, as it was a convenience sample; the student response rate was 100%. The disparity in sample sizes is due to our shift in focus during phase one and an unexpectedly high level of accommodation from professors.

For the two samples, we calculated mean scores and t-tests for each item to determine if the two samples showed any significant differences (Figure 1). Results show no significant differences between the two groups on any item. Furthermore, standard deviations were remarkably low in all cases, indicating that participants were proximate in their responses. Even with the lower rural sample, none of the items are approaching significance so we doubt that additional surveys would substantially change our results. We decided to proceed with critically evaluating the instrument’s items.

Figure 1:

Figure 1:

Open in a new tab

ATA Responses- Mean Scores and Significant Differences between Northeastern Missouri Residents and Public University Undergraduates

Based on written student comments and our anecdotal recollection of area resident comments, three critiques of the ATA emerged. First, some items were too difficult to answer for those with little knowledge of the Amish. Second, some items were factually inaccurate and therefore difficult to answer. Third, items had trigger words that prompted socially desirable answers, as one respondent stated succinctly: “It’s too obvious what the ‘right’ answers are.”

ATA Revisions

Based on the results of phase one, we revised the survey, guided by feedback from respondents, the statistical results, a review of the literature, and our knowledge of the Amish. In our survey, we were guided by five revision principles:

  1. eliminate measures of blatant prejudice,

  2. frame the tone of most items as positive, as it is more socially acceptable to disagree with a positive statement than agree with a negative statement

  3. recognize that “prejudice” is a simplification of what are actually multidimensional attitudes, namely (a) critiques of the “other” can be based on social philosophies other than an out-grouping prejudice, and (b) critiques may follow socially liberal, socially conservative, or other value orientations,

  4. ensure that statements are factually accurate, and

  5. improve the instrument design following survey construction principles, including neutralizing terminology, eliminating loaded wording, increasing understandability, tightening item wording, and eliminating double barrel items. Our changes and rationales are detailed in Table 1.

TABLE 1:

ATA ITEMS AND RATA REVISED ITEMS

Item 1
ATA: Intelligence of the Amish ranges from very slow to average to very intelligent.
RATA: The Amish, on average, are just as smart as anyone else.
The three descriptors—“very slow to average to very intelligent”—was a source of confusion, and given the three examples in the range, this item is actually inviting multiple responses. The revised version eliminates the range and focuses on an average. “Intelligence” is changed to “smart” to reduce potential reference to a trait measurable with aptitude tests and instead framing the item as more of an opinion. The item holds its original intent, to be willing to acknowledge that the intellectual capacities of another group are equal to one’s own group.
Item 2
ATA: There are plenty of Amish people who are very bright, creative, innovative, flexible and adaptable.
RATA: Amish are generally honest people.
The original statement tests whether or not respondents can compliment the Amish. However, the statement is asking for feedback on five topics. The item also overlaps with item one. We reduced this list to one trait, honesty, given that trust is a different attribute from smartness and appeals to one’s experience rather than begging a blatantly socially desirable answer. Despite these revisions, the item’s original intention is still met, to allow the respondent to compliment the Amish in another way.
Items 3 and 4
ATA: The Amish are skillful and efficient workers.
ATA: Amish people are skilled problem solvers around the house and farm.
RATA: If a product is Amish-made, to me, that generally means it is of high quality.
Respondents unfamiliar with the Amish have difficulty responding to the ATA items. We replaced these two statements about Amish labor with one statement measuring the participants’ perception of Amish-manufactured products. Respondents can more broadly assess their opinion of a product that is associated with a people but not necessarily a people’s work ethic, especially when referring to behavior on one’s private property.
Item 5
ATA: Especially in warmer weather, the hot, heavy clothing and bonnets worn by Amish women and children bothers me.
RATA: Especially in warmer weather, the full dresses Amish women are required to wear bother me.
The question appears to be measuring liberal prejudice related to perceived gender-based discrimination. However, the item asks respondents to address both women and children. We eliminated “children” to narrow the focus to just females, i.e., women’s issues. We added the phrase “required to wear” to highlight a female oppression dynamic to explore liberal biases. Yet, this phrase avoids delving into complicated issues about actual oppression that could compromise factuality, such as, who does the requiring (men, leaders, other women, self-enforced?), in what way (informal or formal, positive or negative sanctions?), and to what extent women exercise choice in the matter (e.g. issues of socialization, voice, and false consciousness vs. free will). Despite these questions, it’s indisputable that an Amish woman must wear full dresses to be in good standing with the Amish church. We also eliminated factually problematic content in the original item. Amish clothes are not necessarily hot and heavy, which respondents familiar with the Amish may know. We replaced “hot, heavy” with “full,” which is true.
Item 6
ATA: I would like having an Amish family for neighbors.
RATA: If a group of Amish families move into my community, I would be there to welcome them.
The original question is covertly referencing racial steering in the housing market. Amish residential relocation, however, is usually collective, with the goal of establishing a new Amish community. Furthermore, it’s unlikely that some people will have Amish as neighbors where they live, say, in a subdivision, town, or city. We revised the item to capture a more likely scenario (a group of families moving in) and broadened the geographical scope to “my community” rather than immediate neighbors to make a move-in to a respondent’s geographical area more plausible through broadening it. We also strengthened the statement from the socially desirable answer of “sure, I’d like to have them for neighbors” to actual initiative to welcoming the Amish. Finally, answering negatively to the revised question has less stigma than the first; other plausible reasons besides prejudice could excuse the respondent for not “being there” to offer a welcome, whereas not wanting Amish for neighbors sounds blatantly prejudice.
Item 7
ATA: The Amish should drive their buggies across their fields and stay off of our roads.
RATA: It’s kind of hypocritical for Amish to hire someone to drive them but not own cars themselves.
In addition to asking reviewers to rate two pieces of information—what Amish should and should not do—the ATA’s prescribed solution is pragmatically unreasonable, as many who know Amish will understand. Furthermore, the ATA statement is loaded. The RATA item addresses the polarizing issue of Amish transportation without prescribing a solution. The revised item also measures the extent to which respondents are willing to adopt a culturally relativistic posture in relation to the Amish or to agree with one longstanding “hypocrisy” leveled against the Amish (e.g., in Bachman 1942, pp. 101–11). Furthermore, in some Amish communities, buggy transportation is minimal compared to other modes, including Amish-serving taxis. However, every Amish community will accept a vehicle ride in some, if not all, circumstances. This question removes the buggy and emphasizes the automobile. Finally, we deliberately added the phrase “kind of” to soften the punch of “hypocritical,” which could orient respondents more toward a socially desirable live-and-let-live response. Upon retrospection, this may have made the statement too vague rather than positive or negative. Future studies should explore changes in responses with and without these two words. All-in-all, despite our changes to this item, it remained one of two with no significant difference between the two sampled populations and a small standard deviation. Nevertheless, the RATA item should cause no factual or pragmatic difficulties for respondents, as did the ATA’s item.
Item 8
ATA: Education of Amish children should meet the same state and federal standards of other US schools.
RATA: Education of Amish children should have to meet the same minimum standards of other U.S. schools.
We removed “state” and “federal” qualifications, as participants may have opinions about these separate bodies of laws. The original item also triggered respondent opinions about the “standards” of state-run schools, which was generally unfavorable. This was not the item’s intention. So rather than implying that public schools could be a “standard” Amish should meet, we emphasize “minimum” standards to invoke the question of whether religious values are grounds for an education below what is deemed minimal. This question, in fact, was the subject of a long legal dispute from the 1920s to 1972, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Amish in the Yoder v. Wisconsin case (Fisher 1996; Peters 2003). The emphasis on religious exemptions to minimum schooling standards potentially measures a liberal prejudice, as liberals tend to see public intervention into purportedly religiously dogmatic and closed-off groups as necessary to educate and enlighten children so they have a free will to decide their future (Mazie 2005).
Item 9
ATA: I sure hope no one from my family marries an Amish person.
RATA: I would be supportive if someday a child of mine wanted to join the Amish.
In McConahay’s scale, the item references interracial marriages, namely, white and black. Measuring blatant prejudice, this item is loaded. We inverted the emphasis from a negative to a positive. We feel the item applies more appropriately to interracial marriages than interreligious marriages, as some religions, including the Amish, proscribe interreligious marriages. Yet, religious endogamy does not invoke the same objections as interracial marriage prohibitions. In the case of the Amish, a non-member could only marry an Amish person if he or she joined the Amish. The RATA version gets at the same dynamic—intimately aligning oneself with the identity of the other—but posits a more realistic scenario, as non-members sometimes have interest in the plain people and may even join (Anderson 2016).
Item 10
ATA: If the Amish expect to use our government processes to protect their interests, they should not object to paying the full range of taxes and Social Security.
RATA: Even if the Amish are a peace church, as Americans, the Amish should not object to military service if their country calls them.
RATA: On a religious basis, the Amish have received exemptions from Social Security and laws regarding child labor, work safety, and zoning. In general, I feel they should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
The original item appeals to Amish as citizens who both contribute and receive. Should the Amish gain an unfair advantage in how much they contribute based on being a separate religious group? This is a useful item that is factually incorrect. The Amish are subject to the same taxes as everyone else, except they do receive a denomination-specific religious exemption for Social Security, which Amish must apply for individually with a Form 4029 (Fisher 1996; Glenn 2001; Rohrer and Dundes 2016). We created two items out of the original. The first revised item makes a similar reference to Amish as citizens who contribute and receive, but we have shifted the focus to an historically important conflict of interest: military service (Olshan 1990). Which should take priority: Amish religious beliefs or a citizen’s duty to serve the country if called? This item potentially measures a conservative prejudice. The second item factually states several major exemptions the Amish have received. Respondents may have differing opinions about each of these four, but we then ask them to weigh out “in general” the concept of exemption on religious basis.
Item 11
ATA: To me, Amish people seem to be unfriendly.
RATA: When I see Amish in public places, they seem friendly.
We switched this item from a negative to a positive statement, as it was loaded. Respondents in phase 1 were unlikely to agree with such a negative statement.
Item 12
ATA: As Americans, the Amish have every right to use our roads, hospitals, commerce, police and fire.
This item had a very low standard deviation, so we removed it. It invites an affirmative answer, as it touches on a fundamental American value of the rights of Americans. The item is also asking for opinions on five separate services.
Item 13
ATA: Amish people are not as smart as most other Americans.
RATA: Amish are really limiting their potential by not allowing their children to go beyond 8 th grade.
Participants were largely unwilling to agree with the original item, as it seemed arbitrary and insulting. However, linking the end of Amish formal education after eighth grade, which is a nearly universal practice (Dewalt 2006; McConnell and Hurst 2006), and “potential” gets at whether respondents believe success is attained through the education system or whether Amish potential is attainable outside this institution and measurable by Amish cultural goals (Littell 1969). This item potentially measures a liberal bias, education being an inalienable right due to its enlightening value.
Item 14
ATA: The presence of Amish in any community enhances its economy.
We removed this item as many participants felt that they were not knowledgeable enough to answer. Furthermore, the desirability of Amish in your community is already established in RATA item 9.
Item 15
ATA: Amish people have an offensive odor about them.
As a loaded question, we removed item 15. In phase 1, respondents found it too insulting or felt that they did not have the experience to answer.
Item 16
ATA: Amish people are smarter than most Americans because they all speak two languages.
RATA: The Amish learn two languages, English and German, and in this regards, are a good model for school children today.
The original item pitted Amish intelligence against most Americans solely on the basis of Amish speaking two languages. Respondents were usually not willing to concede this. Yet, Amish bilingualism is a good potential measure of provincialism. Our revised item does not make participants pit Amish as “smarter” than most Americans but just as role models, a people worth inspiring other children. We also felt it helpful to introduce the two languages—English and German—rather than assume respondents know which two languages. The common language of the Amish is not modern German as we know it today but a dialect, “Pennsylvania Dutch”; they also use an archaic High German for religious materials. However, we chose to avoid these specifics and just note “German” for the sake of the question’s simplicity; we do not feel this compromises the question’s accuracy for those very familiar with the Amish.
Item 17
ATA: It is ridiculous for Amish men to keep their pants closed with pins instead of zippers.
RATA: The Amish religion is excessively legalistic.
This ATA item is incorrect; men close their trousers with buttons, not pins, though many Amish women use pins to close their dresses (Scott 1986). Furthermore, the wording in the original was loaded; most respondents would not agree. We feel the RATA version better gets at a respondent’s judgment of the whole constellation of Amish practices. This item also better pits the authority of the group, which requires these practices, against individual freedoms. Furthermore, the absence of an overtly religiously-oriented item in the original instrument was a noticeable omission yet can be a source of prejudice. Thus, we include “religion” after Amish to activate perceptions of religious Puritanism. Amish often settle rural areas where evangelical Protestantism is a conspicuous part of people’s identity, and evangelical Protestants may have religiously based prejudices if they feel the Amish practice a “works religion.” This works religion, evangelicals may argue, tries to earn salvation, which should be obtained solely through a born again experience. Since not all respondents will understand these important theological differences, we opted to capture the idea of “works religion” in “legalistic,” which is a fairly universal concept.
The results from phase 2 demonstrated, however, that the item did not capture a significant difference between the two surveyed populations. The question may still be too loaded. It is also possible that participants did not know enough about the Amish to provide a meaningful response, or that they were unsure how to interpret “legalistic.” A revision may return to the ATA’s original idea of inconsistencies and hypocrisies, as these may be salient in some non-Amish minds (Smith, 1961, ch. 22). Nevertheless, our revision is important in resolving the ATA item’s factual inaccuracy.
Item 18
RATA: I feel the Amish would be better off if they did not take the Bible so literally.
No item in the original instrument measured prejudice against a group due to its religiosity, yet attitudes against strict religious groups as backwards and irrational people remains a source of prejudice today (Stark, Iannaccone and Finke 1996). This item is designed to measure attitudes against the Amish as a Bible-literalist group.
Item 19
RATA: As long as the Amish aren’t bothering anyone else, they should be given room to live how they please, even if that means their people have fewer opportunities in life.
This concluding catch-all item pits the fundamentally American value of “live and let live” against itself. Do others have a right to tell “the Amish” how to live if they are not interfering with others’ rights (cultural pluralism)? Or does the fact that “the Amish” limit their members’ life choices justify outside intervention, to liberate them from themselves (enforcing ethical universals) (Park 2018)? The latter supports an attitude that justifies action and intervention.
Open in a new tab

Phase II: Methods

With a revised instrument, we then administered the RATA to residents in the area and students from the same university. As with phase one, rural participants in phase two were selected with a non-probability convenience sample. Participants were recruited at three public events: a flea market, a consignment auction, and a livestock auction. Unlike phase one, we did not survey the farmers’ market because it had closed for the season; neither did we survey the train station, as we had received very few responses there in phase one. All other procedures were replicated.

Student selection in phase two took place late in the semester, so changes had to be made to the method, as instructors were unwilling to allocate their class time for data collection. Students were instead selected based on a convenience sample. Student participants were given surveys in on-campus residence halls, building lounges, and outdoor courtyards.

Phase II: Results

One-hundred area residents and 100 students responded to the RATA. We again calculated means, standard deviations, and t-tests for these two samples. Results (Figure 2) demonstrate significant differences between rural Missouri residents and college residents in their scores on all but two questions, suggesting that the instrument is no longer leading respondents to socially desirable answers.

Figure 2:

Figure 2:

Open in a new tab

ATA Responses- Mean Scores and Significant Differences between Northeastern Missouri Residents and Public University Undergraduates

McGuigan (2014) conducted a factor analysis with varimax rotation to analyze the face validity (a subjective “at face value” validation) of the ATA; we did likewise for the RATA (Table 2). In our factor analysis, we selected four components with reasonably high eigenvalues. Component 1 had a very high eigenvalue while components 3 and 4 were proximate; component 2 fell in-between. We coded the results so that positive loadings indicate preference positively assessing the Amish while negative loadings represent assessments against them. We considered loadings with values of ±0.375 to ±1.00.

Table 2:

Factor Analysis of Responses to the RATA

Item Liberal/conservative Disreputable Cold Unintelligent
01-Smart −0.125 0.053 0.071 −0.811
02-Honest −0.040 −0.628 0.081 −0.033
03-Product 0.121 −0.514 0.067 −0.049
05-Dresses −0.719 0.165 −0.129 0.049
06-Welcome 0.370 −0.492 −0.173 −0.088
07-Hypocrites −0.130 0.143 −0.090 −0.022
08-Education −0.661 −0.246 0.072 0.235
09-Join 0.514 −0.230 −0.302 0.052
10a-Military 0.778 −0.198 0.077 −0.040
10b-Exemptions 0.556 0.055 −0.019 0.062
11-Friendly −0.127 0.262 −0.692 −0.033
13-Potential −0.627 0.082 −0.154 −0.115
16-Bilingual 0.180 −0.408 −0.017 −0.609
17-Legalistic 0.014 −0.385 −0.556 0.254
18-Bible −0.500 0.314 −0.335 −0.029
19-Live Free −0.444 0.339 −0.391 −0.164
Open in a new tab

Factor analysis with varimax rotation

Bolded loadings are ±0.375 to ±1.00

Component 1 captures the liberal/conservative prejudice divide, both high and low loadings representing a mixture of attitudes. High loadings signal a tolerant attitude of the Amish inasmuch as Amish positions align with a socially liberal attitude toward individual freedom and enlightenment, including pacifism and legal exemptions that allow Amish to live according to their beliefs. Support for a child joining the Amish probably has a high loading due to the emphasis on choice, and a high loading on welcoming Amish to the community would represent an attitude of wanting to make any minority feel accepted. Yet, this loading seems to disapprove of anything that limits Amish individuals’ choices, including a literal interpretation of the Bible, women’s dress, and a potentially substandard educational system.

Low loadings for component 1 suggest a defense of the Amish’s right to live according to Amish values, e.g. dress, school, and religious ideas. However, Amish exemption to governmental laws (preferential treatment), especially with military service, are not part of this defense. This signals a patriotic orientation that calls all to support and defend the system that gives people the freedom to live according to their values. Respondents who would be represented by this component are also not actively interested in intimate connections with the Amish—e.g. through neighbors or through a family member joining them—indicating that they value social distance from people choosing to live differently (at least the Amish).

Component 2 focuses on Amish people’s character quality. Negative loadings suggest an interpretation of the Amish as dishonest—e.g. not having quality products—and as having a legalistic system, which paired with the other items, suggests legalism as a system to excuse dishonesty and abuses. The Amish would not make good role models for children (at least inasmuch as they speak two languages) and would not be welcomed into the community.

Component 3 represents a view of the Amish as cold: unfriendly, legalistic, and smothering their own people. Component 4 represents views of Amish as unintelligent; the second of McGuigan’s (2014) components in his ATA factor analysis was similar.

These four components represent plausible, easily interpretable, and prevailing attitudes toward the Amish discussed elsewhere in the literature (e.g., Boyer 2008; Byers, Crider and Biggers 1999; Park 2018; Pratt 2004; Trollinger 2012; Weaver-Zercher 2001) and thus contributes to the face validity of the RATA items.

Discussion

An effective survey instrument should detect variations across populations. In our initial administration of the ATA, we found no significant differences between university students and rural residents, groups we would reasonably expect to have contrasting perceptions of the Amish. This called into question the ATA’s operational validity, that is, whether the instrument accurately measures people’s attitudes. From respondents’ feedback and our own assessment, we concluded that the main problem was wording that prompted socially desirable responses; respondents could detect that the instrument was measuring prejudice and adjusted their answers accordingly. McConahay’s original racial prejudice scale was developed 30 years prior to our research. Since then, public sensitivity to prejudice has evolved considerably, as has the social stigma associated with it. Prejudice has been highlighted to an extent that individuals are seasoned at spotting it in others as well as identifying cues for which they themselves are being tested. While we acknowledge that the ATA has already undergone rigorous testing, we also believe it prudent that the survey adapts to a changing social landscape. To that end, we revised the ATA to enhance its ability to accurately measure attitudes. In so doing, we also abandoned the concept of prejudice as an either/or phenomenon, acknowledging that attitudes are multilayered and poorly represented along a one-dimensional prejudice/non-prejudice scale. More helpful is an instrument that characterizes attitudes, which result in various combinations of context- and issue-specific social actions of prejudice and exclusion (Wimmer 2013).

Results from the RATA are a promising step in this direction. We identified statistically significant differences between university student and rural resident responses on all but two items. Additionally, a factor analysis produced four components that capture realistic yet multidimensional attitudes toward the Amish that do not simply categorize respondents as more or less prejudice.

The liberal/conservative component is helpful in identifying underlying philosophies in common Amish/non-Amish conflicts. A liberally-oriented conflict may entail non-Amish intervention when certain individual rights are perceived to be violated by the group or when they are perceived as wanting to impose their values on society (as discussed in relation to the Amish in Cohen 2014; Friesen and Friesen 1996, Ch. 1; Mazie 2005; Neuberger and Taman 2014; Raley 2011). Cases may focus on perceived or actual deficiencies in family care, quality of education, treatment of animals, or absence of home safety equipment such as fire alarms. A conservatively-oriented conflict might focus on Amish people’s responsibility as American citizens or a resource-based competition between the Amish and locals (as discussed in Glover 2011; Park 2017; Pratt 2004). Conflicts may focus on minority preferential treatment, as with exemption from a military draft and Social Security; interference with others’ use of the roads, as with horseshoe damage, horse droppings, and slow buggies holding up traffic; and a come-here/been-here tension when Amish move in and buy up land.

The first component shows that attitudes toward the Amish cannot be simply measured along a scale. Any given ideological cluster may be more tolerant of the Amish than another depending on the issue. Action in any conflict has the potential for misunderstandings and prejudices, whether it is a liberal-leaning “the Amish are patriarchal and hiding much abuse” or a conservative-leaning “the Amish are driving land prices up and locals out.”

The other three components, however, move into areas that do not clearly show a conservative or liberal philosophy. The character component, for example, suggests that some people have had poor personal experiences with the Amish. This component may capture some of the frustrations and dynamics documented qualitatively among local residents in a northwestern Pennsylvania Amish community (Park 2018) and service providers working with a related affiliation of Mennonites in Ontario (Good Gingrich 2016). Inversely, others have had positive experiences, including people who consume Amishness through tourism and media from a distance and certainly some who have regular, interpersonal contact. The hundreds of Amish communities vary in reputation with non-Amish neighbors.

Our study has several limitations mainly related to our sampling. In phase 1, we surveyed a relatively low number of northeast Missouri residents compared to university students. This was due to our shift in purpose, from a study that used the ATA to one that investigated the operational validity of the instrument itself. We also lost several potential surveying sites by the time we discussed gathering more data, as winter was well underway and the outdoor venues we had used to sample the population were closed for the season. Additionally, in phase 2, we needed to change our sampling methods again due to timing, both with the student population and with the sampling sites for the rural population. Nevertheless, we feel that the statistical differences between the two phases are compelling when juxtaposed against respondent feedback that identified problems with the original instrument; a literature review that revealed problems with the MacConahay “Old-Fashioned and Modern Racism” scale, on which the ATA was based; and our own critical analysis of individual ATA items.

Despite these limitations, we feel that the RATA is a promising instrument. This study has several important implications for the development of attitudinal instruments; we will highlight three. First, we strengthened the instrument by avoiding social desirability bias—by using positive statements, avoiding loaded wording, and not measuring blatant prejudice. Second, we approached attitudes as multifaceted rather than as more or less prejudiced. Finally, we carefully considered how we worded descriptions about the out-group, so that the information is accurate but also addresses popular preoccupations that inform attitudes.

The instrument would benefit from further testing to ensure its reliability and validity. First, we recommend that the ATA and RATA be administered to two populations in another Amish region. Second, we recommend that the RATA be subjected to a test-retest study, as was the ATA, to measure stability. Third, to further explore operational validity, we would recommend the instrument be administered to a population currently embroiled in a dispute, to explore whether or not the components do indeed reflect the philosophical tendencies we posit they do. Finally, this study is one of several that has empirically produced a set of non-Amish perceptions about the Amish (Anderson 2016; Byers and Crider 2002; Byers, Crider and Biggers 1999; Neuberger and Taman 2014; Park 2018). Scholars of the Amish should begin considering how these topic-specific sets can be generalized into an overarching set of attitudinal typologies toward the Amish and relate them to prevailing social philosophies. This work would be tremendously important in understanding issues at the interface between the Amish and adjacent/overlapping social systems.

Footnotes

1

Amish practice on touch-button issues varies widely depending on community, affiliation, and individual.

Contributor Information

Cory Anderson, The Pennsylvania State University.

Lee Decker, University of Central Missouri.

REFERENCES

  1. Allport Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson Cory. 2016. “Religious Seekers’ Attraction to the Plain Mennonites and Amish.” Review of Religious Research 58(1):125–47. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson Cory, and Kenda Loren. 2015. “What Kinds of Places Attract and Sustain Amish Populations?” Rural Sociology 80(4):483–511. [Google Scholar]
  4. Armer Jane, and M. Elise Radina. 2006. “Definition of Health and Health Promotion Behaviors among Midwestern Amish Families.” Journal of Multicultural Nursing & Health 12(3):44–53. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachman Calvin George. 1942. The Old Order Amish of Lancaster County. Norristown, PA: Pennsylvania German Society. [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyer Paul. 2008. “Understanding the Amish in Twenty-First Century America.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 82(3):359–76. [Google Scholar]
  7. Byers Bryan, and Crider Benjamin. 2002. “Hate Crimes against the Amish: A Qualitative Analysis of Bias Motivation Using Routine Activities Theory.” Deviant Behavior 23(2):115–48. [Google Scholar]
  8. Byers Bryan, Crider Benjamin, and Biggers Gregory. 1999. “Bias Crime Motivation: A Study of Hate Crime Offender Neutralization Techniques Used against the Amish.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 15(1):78–96. [Google Scholar]
  9. Byers Bryan, and William McGuigan. 2017. “The Old Order Amish and Prejudice: Attitudes, Contact, and Discriminatory Treatment.” Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Society-Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies Association joint conference. Columbus, OH. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cacioppo John, and Petty Richard. 1982. “The Need for Cognition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42:116–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Correll Joshua, Judd Charles, Park Bernadette, and Wittenbrink Bernd. 2010. “Measuring Prejudice, Stereotypes and Discrimination.” Pp. 45–62 in The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination, edited by Dovidio John, Miles Hewstone, Peter Glick, and Victoria Esses: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen Susan Ruth. 2014. “Are the Amish Good Citizens?” Mennonite Quarterly Review 88(1):65–98. [Google Scholar]
  13. Colyer Cory, Anderson Cory, Stein Rachel, Donnermeyer Joseph, and Wasao Samson. 2017. “Reviving the Demographic Study of the Amish.” Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 5(1):96–119. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cooksey Elizabeth, and Donnermeyer Joseph. 2013. “A Peculiar People Revisited: Demographic Foundations of the Iowa Amish in the 21st Century.” Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 1(1):110–26. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dewalt Mark. 2006. Amish Education in the United States and Canada. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. [Google Scholar]
  16. Donnermeyer Joseph. 2015. “Doubling Time and Population Increase of the Amish.” Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 3(1):94–109. [Google Scholar]
  17. Donnermeyer Joseph, and Anderson Cory. 2015. “A Mid-Decade Update on Amish Settlement Growth.” Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 3(2):222–35. [Google Scholar]
  18. Elmlinger Ilene. 2014. “Meeting the Need for Hearing Screening in the Amish Community.” The Hearing Journal 67(7):30–31. [Google Scholar]
  19. Enninger Werner. 1986. “The Theme of Ethnicity in the Literature of the Old Order Amish.” Pp. 115–36 in Studies on the Languages and the Verbal Behavior of the Pennsylvania Germans I, edited by Enninger Werner. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GMBH. [Google Scholar]
  20. Feilder Klaus, Messner Claude and Bluemke Matthias. 2010. “Unresolved Problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A Logical and Psychometric Critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT).” European Review of Social Psychology 17(1):74–147. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fisher Wayne. 1996. The Amish in Court. New York, NY: AMS Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Friesen Bruce, and Friesen John. 1996. Perceptions of the Amish Way. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gangel Kenneth. 1971. “The Amish of Jamesport, Missouri.” Practical Anthropology 18(July-August):156–66. [Google Scholar]
  24. Glenn Brian. 2001. “Collective Precommitment from Temptation: The Amish and Social Security.” Rationality and Society 13(2):185–204. [Google Scholar]
  25. Glover Andrew. 2011. “The Pit and the Pendulum: How Far Can RLUIPA Go in Protecting the Amish?” Penn State Environmental Law Review 19:109–29. [Google Scholar]
  26. Godfrey Sherrie, Richman Charles and Withers Taryn. 2000. “Reliability and Validity of a New Scale to Measure Prejudice: The GRISMS.” Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social 19:3–20. [Google Scholar]
  27. Good Gingrich Luann. 2016. Out of Place: Social Exclusion and Mennonite Migrants in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Grammich Clifford, Hadaway Kirk, Houseal Richard, Jones Dale, Krindatch Alexei, Stanley Richie, and Taylor Richard. 2012. 2010 U.S. Religion Census: Religious Congregations and Membership Survey. Kansas City, MO: Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gray David B., Connor Sheila and Decatur Michael. 1994. “The Belief in Equality Inventory and Leadership Behavior: A Construct Validation.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24:367–77. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hamberger Jürgen, and Miles Hewstone. 1997. “Inter-Ethnic Contact as a Predictor of Blatant and Subtle Prejudice: Tests of a Model in Four West European Nations” British Journal of Social Psychology 36(2):173–190. [Google Scholar]
  31. Harasta Joseph. 2014. “The Amish—A People of Preservation and Profitability: A Look at the Amish Industry in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.” Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 2(1):23–41. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hartman Joel. 1986. “Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites in Missouri.” Pp. 140–57 in The German-American Experience in Missouri: Essays in Commemoration of the Tricentennial of German Immigration to America, 1683–1983, edited by Wight Howard and Goodrich James. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia and Missouri Cultural Heritage Center. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hawley Jana, and Hamilton Jean. 1996. “Retail Entrepreneurial Values in a Bicultural Community: Cultural and Economic Contentions and Negotiation.” Journal of Socio-Economics 25(6):639–61. [Google Scholar]
  34. Héctor Arancibia-Martini, Miguel Á. Ruiz, Amalio Blanco, and Manuel Cárdenas. 2016. “New Evidence of Construct Validity Problems for Pettigrew and Meertens’ (1995) Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale.” Psychological Reports 118(2):544–564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Henry Patrick, and Sears David. 2002. “The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale.” Political Psychology 23(2):253–283 [Google Scholar]
  36. Laura Badenes-Ribera, Dolores Frias-Navarro, Hector Monterde-i-Bort and Marcos Pascual-Soler. 2016. “Spanish Validation of the Polymorphous Prejudice Scale in a Sample of University Students” Journal of Homosexuality 63(11):1517–1536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Littell Franklin. 1969. “Sectarian Protestantism and the Pursuit of Wisdom: Must Technological Objectives Prevail?” Pp. 61–82 in Public Controls for Nonpublic Schools, edited by Erickson Donald. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mazie Steven. 2005. “Consenting Adults? Amish Rumspringa and the Quandary of Exit in Liberalism.” Perspectives on Politics 3(4):745–59. [Google Scholar]
  39. McConahay John B. 1986. “Modern Racism, Ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale” Pp. 91–125 in Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism, edited by Dovidio JF and Gaertner SL. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. McConnell David, and Hurst Charles. 2006. “No ‘Rip Van Winkles’ Here: Amish Education since Wisconsin v. Yoder.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 37(3):236–54. [Google Scholar]
  41. McGuigan William. 2014. “Reliability and Validity of a Scale to Measure Prejudice toward Old Order Amish.” Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 2(1):147–54. [Google Scholar]
  42. McGuigan William, and Scholl Carol. 2007. “The Effect of Contact on Attitudes toward Old Order Amish.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37(11):2642–59. [Google Scholar]
  43. Neuberger Benyamin, and Taman Keren-Miriam. 2014. “The Image of the Amish in the New York Times versus the Image of the Haredim in Haaretz (1980–2010).” Conflict and Communication Online; 13(1). [Google Scholar]
  44. Olson Michael. 2009. “Measures of Prejudice.” Pp. 367–86 in Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination, edited by Nelson T. New York, NY: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Olson Michael A., and Fazio Russell H.. 2003. “Relations Between Implicit Measures of Prejudice:What Are We Measuring?” Psychological Science 14(6):636–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Olshan Marc. 1990. “The Old Order Amish Steering Committee: A Case Study in Organizational Evolution.” Social Forces 69(2):603–16. [Google Scholar]
  47. Park Kristin. 2018. “Using Cultural Relativism to Interpret Non-Amish Perceptions of the Old Order Amish.” Journal of Amish and Plain Anabaptist Studies 6(1):117–43. [Google Scholar]
  48. Peters Shawn Francis. 2003. The Yoder Case: Religious Freedom, Education, and Parental Rights. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pettigrew TF and Meertens RW. 1995. “Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Western Europe.” European Journal of Social Psychology 25(1):57–75 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pratt Dorothy. 2004. Shipshewana: An Indiana Amish Community. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pratto Felicia, Sidanius Jim, Stallworth Lisa and Malle Bertram. 1994. “Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:741–63. [Google Scholar]
  52. Raley Gage. 2011. “Yoder Revisited: Why the Landmark Amish Schooling Case Could—and Should—Be Overturned.” Virginia Law Review 97(3):681–722. [Google Scholar]
  53. Redding Richard. 2014. “Bias on Prejudice? The Politics of Research on Racial Prejudice.” Psychological Inquiry 15(4):289–293. [Google Scholar]
  54. Reschly Steven. 2000. The Amish on the Iowa Prairie: 1840–1910. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rohrer Kristyn, and Dundes Lauren. 2016. “Sharing the Load: Amish Healthcare Financing.” Healthcare 4(4):92–101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosenberg Stanley, Farrell Michael, and Gorman John. 1976. “Revising Race Prejudice Scales.” Journal of Social Psychology 100(2):227–234. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schwieder Elmer, and Schwieder Dorothy. 1975. A Peculiar People: Iowa’s Old Order Amish. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. [Google Scholar]
  58. Scott Stephen. 1986. Why Do They Dress That Way? Intercourse, PA: Good Books. [Google Scholar]
  59. Smith Elmer Lewis. 1961. The Amish Today: An Analysis of Their Beliefs, Behavior, and Contemporary Problems: Pennsylvania German Folklore Society. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sniderman Paul M., and Piazza Thomas. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sniderman Paul M., and Tetlock Philip E.. 1986. “Symbolic Racism: Problems of Motive Attribution in Political Analysis” Journal of Social Issues 42:129–150. [Google Scholar]
  62. Stark Rodney, Iannaccone Laurence, and Finke Roger. 1996. “Religion, Science, and Rationality.” American Economic Review 86(2):433–37. [Google Scholar]
  63. Trollinger Susan. 2012. Selling the Amish: The Tourism of Nostalgia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. Waller James. 1993. “Correlation of Need for Cognition and Modern Racism” Psychological Reports 73:542. [Google Scholar]
  65. Weaver-Zercher David. 2001. The Amish in the American Imagination. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wimmer Andreas. 2013. Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power, Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES