Politicians engaging in religious rhetoric risk being called hypocrites, according to a new study by University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) researchers. The phenomenon is called the Pharisee Effect and is based on biblical references to Jesus’ rebuke of religious leaders, known as the Pharisees, for using public prayers to enhance their own image. The theoretical study appears in the latest issue of The Journal of Communication and Religion.

May 11, 2006

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Politicians engaging in religious rhetoric risk being called hypocrites, according to a new study by University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) researchers. The phenomenon is called the Pharisee Effect and is based on biblical references to Jesus’ rebuke of religious leaders, known as the Pharisees, for using public prayers to enhance their own image. The theoretical study appears in the latest issue of The Journal of Communication and Religion.

The Pharisees’ public piety made them subject to accusations of insincerity and hypocrisy. The same accusations can be leveled against politicians who make religious appeals, say study authors Larry Powell, Ph.D., and Eduardo Neiva, Ph.D. Political leaders like former President Ronald Reagan successfully used religious appeals to win over groups like the Christian Coalition. But such efforts can backfire, say Powell and Neiva. They say claims of religiosity in the political context actually encourage an escalating exchange of messages between competing candidates until eventually one candidate’s rhetoric – in the eyes of voters – goes too far.

When a religious appeal goes too far, audiences’ negative reactions can fall into five different categories, say Powell and Neiva. The categories are: self-serving motivations or intentionality; deception or hypocrisy; inappropriateness; fanaticism; and the holier-than-thou attitude. Any of the five evaluations can cause the public to reject the candidate, his or her ideas, or both.

“When a candidate addresses a political issue with religious overtones, and adopts the religious side of that issue, that candidate is likely to receive increased voter support,” the authors wrote. “However, if the candidate’s use of religious appeals goes too far, the voters will perceive the candidate to be using religion for political purposes. Much like the Pharisee who prayed too loudly in public, the appeal will be rejected.”

One famous example was former President Jimmy Carter who openly talked about his “born again” experience. But when he was quoted in a Playboy magazine article saying that he had “lusted in his heart,” the statement quickly became a campaign issue.

“Similarly, George W. Bush’s speech at Bob Jones University [an ultra right wing Christian university] during the 2000 campaign resulted in a media backlash. Although Bush’s speech didn’t cost him the Republican nomination, it had the potential to hurt him with general election voters,” the authors wrote.

The Pharisee Effect has destroyed other political campaigns. Judge Roy Moore, known as “The Ten Commandments Judge,” won popularity and eventually a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court for his effort to display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. But Moore went too far, say the authors, when he disobeyed a court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building. His stance caused his popularity to slip from 68 to 40 percent in 2003 in a state where more than 75 percent of voters polled say they attend church several times a month.

Moore continues to suffer from the Pharisee Effect. He currently trails Alabama Gov. Bob Riley in the Republican primary for governor.

More research is needed to examine how religious appeals are viewed by different groups of voters, why religious appeals benefit some campaigns, and how other issues, along with religious appeals, can affect campaigns.