mesuring identities in survey

8/6/2019 Mesuring Identities in Survey

1/36

Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 4, Winter 2006, pp. 530564

MEASURING RELIGIOUS IDENTITIES

IN SURVEYS

DUANE F. ALWIN

JACOB L. FELSON

EDWARD T. WALKER

PAULA A. TUFIS

Abstract The purpose of this article is to acquaint the broader pub-lic opinion research audience with what has been a salient issue withinthe community of scholars of religion. We address the question of howbest to conceptualize and measure religious identities in research oncontemporary American society. We consider the main approaches tothe measurement of religious identification with regard to their back-grounds, their assumptions about the importance of understandingreligious identities in historically relevant terms, and the practical con-siderations of survey measurement. Using data from the General Social

Survey, particularly recent innovative efforts to obtain information onsubjective association with particular religious traditions and/or move-ments (e.g., Pentecostal, fundamentalist, evangelical, mainline, orliberal Protestant), we compare the two main approaches: the traditionaldenominational approach, where religious identities are assumedto be associated with religious denominations, and the subjectiveapproach, where religious identities are assumed to be captured by a setof nondenominational reference categories linked to particular histor-ical religious traditions or social movements. We conclude that bothapproaches have substantial predictive validity, and the most effective

strategy for future research may be one that uses a combination ofapproaches, rather than one that relies entirely on a single method ofmeasurement.

DUANEF. ALWIN is the McCourtney Professor of Sociology and Demography at Pennsylvania StateUniversity. JACOBL. FELSON, EDWARDT. WALKER, and PAULAA. TUFIS are graduate students in theDepartment of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University. The authors acknowledge research sup-port from the Population Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University, and the McCourtney

endowment. We thank Roger Finke, Peter Miller, and anonymous reviewers for providing helpfulcomments on an earlier version of the article. Address correspondence to Duane F. Alwin; e-mail:dfa2@psu edu


2/36

Measuring Religious Identities 531

Introduction

It has been a commonly accepted view among twentieth-century social scien-

tists that religious identities play a powerful role in peoples lives. This view

can be traced to the origins of sociological thought concerning the importanceof religion in social life. For example, Emile Durkheim ([1912] 1995) argued

that religiondefined as a unified system of beliefs and practices oriented to

sacred thingsis organized around collective identities that motivate and

maintain beliefs and behavior. Drawing attention to the social differentiation

of religious identities, Max Weber (192223 in Gerth and Mills 1958) and

Ernst Troeltsch ([1931] 1960) recognized the importance of the social organi-

zational distinction between church and sect for understanding religious

behavior in post-Reformation society, and this distinction continues to be an

important basis for the religious identities of individuals in the contemporaryworld (e.g., Finke and Stark 1992; Stark and Finke 2000).

In the American context, the study of the history of religion, particularly the

history of Protestantism, involves a study of an array of social movements that

resulted in different religious denominations. It is apparent that such denomi-

national affiliations were critical to the identities of individuals. Building on

the Weber-Troeltsch church-sect typology, Richard Niebuhr (1929) traced the

development of Protestant denominations in American society, concluding

that religious identities were more highly dependent on socioeconomic factors

than theological differences. The pioneering work of Gerhard Lenski (1961)employed the concept of denominational identity to capture the key elements

of religion that were linked to economic, political, and family life. Lenski

based his argument in part on Will Herbergs (1960) tripartite distinction for

the American case of Protestant, Catholic, Jew. Herberg had argued that

despite increasing secularization, religion was paradoxically gaining strength;

and with the declining importance of ethnic group identification for indivi-

duals, the distinctions between major religious groupsProtestant, Catholic,

or Jewishwere taking a stronger position in terms of their influences on

self-identification (Herberg 1960, pp. 1839).At least from Lenskis work (1961) onward, it is perhaps fair to say that

denominational identities have been the dominant approach to the conceptual-

ization of religion and its measurement (e.g., Roof 1999; Roof and McKinney

1987; T. Smith 1987, 1990; Steensland et al. 2000). In fact, when social scientists

make reference to the religion variable (or what Lenski [1961] called the

religious factor), they often mean (implicitly or explicitly) religious denom-

ination. There is, of course, more to religion than denominational identities,

and several efforts have been undertaken to define a concept of generic religi-

osity. Indeed, it has been argued by several observers (e.g., Alwin 1986,pp. 43436) that in some spheres of social life denominational differences


3/36

532 Alwin et al.

Recently, the denominational approach to the conceptualization and mea-

surement of religious identities has been seriously questioned, and contempo-

rary researchers have argued that other forms of religious identitythose that

consider the identification of individuals with specific historical religious

movementscan be employed in analyses to more favorably capture the criti-

cal variation in the religious sphere. Christian Smith and his colleagues (1998;

see also Smith and Sikkink 2003), for example, have cautioned against the

exclusive usage of the denominational approach, arguing that religious identi-

ties rooted in labels associated with twentieth-century religious movements or

historical religious traditions are the best way to capture important religious

categories that shape social life, at least with respect to Protestant religious

identities. The survey research literature reflects this reorientation, as in the

1990s several political scientists and sociologists introduced the idea of meas-

uring religious identity by asking respondents whether they subjectively iden-

tified as fundamentalist, evangelical, mainline, theologically liberal,

charismatic, or Pentecostal (Green et al. 1996; Kellstedt and Smidt 1991;

C. Smith et al. 1998; Wilcox, Jelen, and Leege 1993). Prior to the 1990s,

movement identity questions had been used only with specialized religious

populations such as clergy (Beatty and Walter 1988, 1989). In a national multi-

method study of churchgoing Protestants, Smith et al. (1998, pp. 23336)

found that most respondents were familiar with the names of Protestant move-

ments and had little trouble identifying themselves with at least one of them.

Following these themes, we explore the concept of religious identity and

how it is conceptualized and measured in contemporary survey research. We

contrast these two approaches with respect to Protestant religious identities.1

The first is what we here call the denominational approach, wherein reli-

gious identities are assumed to be associated with religious denominations,

and that adherence to particular denominational (and in some cases nonde-

nominational) religious groups is used to capture meaningful individual varia-

tion in religious belief and practice. From the point of view of measurement,

there are several approaches that can be used to assess religious identities,

given a set of responses with respect to denominational preferences (T.Smith

1987, 1990; Steensland et al. 2000). We compare these approaches to a reli-

ance on movement identification, or what has been called the self-identifi-

cation approach to religious identification (see C. Smith et al. 1998; Smith

and Sikkink 2003), wherein religious identities are assumed to be captured by

a set of nondenominational reference categories linked to particular histori-

cal religious traditionsfor example, evangelical or fundamentalist (Kell-

stedt and Smidt 1991; C. Smith et al. 1998; Wilcox, Jelen, and Leege 1993).

We compare the denominational and the self-identification approaches to mea-

suring religious identities and evaluate their similarities and differences with


4/36


respect to measures of religious beliefs and behavior. Specifically, we use data

from the 1996, 1998, and 2000 General Social Survey (GSS), which employed

multiple measures of religious identification, tracing the implications of these

results for the study of religious belief and behavior.

The Research Problem

We conceive of contemporary religious organizations as faith communities

within which religious identities are lodged. Whether we think of these as

churches, congregations, denominations, or simply as religious com-

munities, the assumption is that, through such religious organizations, reli-

gions function to provide an important set of experiences that create and

maintain the identities of individuals, and they therefore, like other socialinstitutions, provide key socialization and social support functions that help

shape religious identities, beliefs, and practices. Such religious communities,

thus, both reflect the beliefs and orientations of their members and at the same

time shape and influence those same beliefs and orientations. There is a

widely observed correspondence between what are often referred to as religious

subculturesthe ecological nexus within which religious identities are

locatedand a range of religious and nonreligious beliefs, attitudes, and

behaviors (e.g., Gay and Ellison 1993; Gay, Ellison, and Powers 1996; Gay,

Lynxwiler, and Peek 2001).In order to understand the link between religious organizations and reli-

gious identities there are at least three important considerations. The first is

that religious identities function in ways similar to other aspects of social

identity. There is a body of social psychological literature that is relevant to

understanding the nature of identities, and this literature can be used to better

understand the nature and development of religious identities (see Burke 2004).

The second is that religious identities must be understood in historically rele-

vant terms. Virtually all religious denominations or other aspects of religious

identity are a complex result of social movements embedded in particular his-torical circumstances, and it is a mistake to ignore the nature of the historical

process that has resulted in particular forms of religious identification. Finally,

a third consideration of relevance here involves the nature of measurement. In

particular, we assume that the measurement of religious identity in the context

of survey research involves recognizable features of survey measurement that

can be evaluated according to standard criteria of validity and reliability.

What Are Religious Identities?Identities, according to Rosenberg (1981, p. 601), are the fundamental bases


5/36

534 Alwin et al.

social psychology that individuals take on such identities, which then

become salient within particular social contexts (Stryker 1980). Social identi-

ties are of two typesthose identities taken on voluntarily, such as social

roles, and those resulting from processes of ascription. Regarding the latter,

Rosenberg (1981, p. 601) notes that scarcely has an infant entered the world

than he or she is immediately classified according to race, sex, religion,

nationality, and so forth. These ascribed identities are attached to the individual

based on biological or group characteristics, but as we emphasize throughout

this article, religious identities are ultimately a matter of choice. We empha-

size the social psychological nature of religious identities here both for

conceptual reasons and because of their implications for measurement (see

Burke 2004).

One set of processes by which religious identities are constructed involves

what Hewitt (1989, pp. 191201) refers to as the strategy of exclusivity

(although other processes are clearly involved), in which actions and experi-

ences can be meaningfully interpreted by identifying with a single religious

community. This may be a religious denomination, a church/synagogue/tem-

ple, a particular congregation, or a religious movement. According to Hewitt

(1989, p. 193), those who take this strategy view their community as an

enclave, often portraying it as opposed to society at large or to other commu-

nities . . . . its members are apt to feel that their community is in sole posses-

sion of the truth, and occasionally they will claim moral ownership of

society. Examples of a pronounced emphasis on this strategy of exclusivity

are Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians, whose day-to-day existence

is organized by the demands of the religious subculture.

An important element in the understanding of social identities involves the

issue ofcontinuity, whereby particular emergent identities are linked across

time. Most identities that develop early in childhood are highly stable over the

lifespan (see Alwin 1994; Wells and Stryker 1988). Although there is clear

evidence that sexual, religious, and political identities have their roots in early

childhood, these types of identities are thought to be formed during adoles-

cence and young adulthood. Identities that develop later in adolescence and

young adulthood may be just as deeply held and therefore may be quite stable

over peoples lives. These types of identities may be susceptible to the influ-

ences of historical factors and social change, and the new identity may have a

powerful effect on the individuals beliefs and behavior. Students of religious

switching have argued that, once established, there is relatively little change

in religious identities (e.g., Sherkat 2001). In the 1988 GSS module dealing

with this topic, for example, after being asked about their current religious

affiliation and the religious denomination in which they were raised, respon-

dents were asked whether they ever had another religious preference.

Slightly less than one-third of GSS respondents reported any change in reli-


6/36


at a young age (Roof 1989, p. 534). The patterns of stability and change were

related to religious denomination: 94 percent of Jews, 84 percent of Catholics,

and 68 percent of Protestants retained their childhood identity (Roof 1989,

p. 532).

The Historical Nature of Religious Identity

The history of religious movements involves competition and conflict

between a variety of religious identities and beliefs. Given the cultural dynam-

ics of the last half-century, it is not surprising that several prominent religion

scholars began to prefer movement identification to denomination as a way to

measure religion in the early 1990s. In an influential book Wuthnow (1988b)

described how the consensus across Protestant denominations in the 1950s

gave way to internecine conflict in the 1960s and 1970s, as theological liber-

als sparred with theological conservatives over the morality of liberalizing

social norms. As conflict increased both across and within denominations,

new religious boundaries emerged. Doctrinal feuds that divided denomina-

tions mattered less. Attitudes about gender roles and perspectives on sexual

morality mattered more. While more liberal churchgoers embraced many of

the societal changes that brought greater freedom for more individuals, con-

servative churchgoers found themselves at odds with a culture they viewed as

increasingly secular.

Since the mid-1980s, sociologists of religion have often classified survey

respondents into schemas organized along a continuum from liberal to conser-

vative based on denominational identities. But in the last ten years or so,

scholars have come to view the largest Protestant denominationsBaptists,

Lutherans, and Methodistsas heterogeneous with regard to basic religious

values and attitudes (Woodberry and Smith 1998). Thus, some scholars have

come to believe that denominational classification schemas are fraught with

excessive measurement error. Also in recent years, more people identify asnondenominational and thus cannot be categorized using traditional meth-

ods. In the context of recent religious dynamics, it makes sense that some

scholars have begun to advocate direct measurement of religious movement

identification. While movement identification has now been used in a wide

range of research analyses (e.g., Beatty and Walter 1988; Denton 2004;

Gallagher 2004; Kellstedt and Smidt 1991; Park and Smith 2000; Schwadel

2005; C. Smith et al. 1998; C. Smith and Sikkink 2003; Woodberry and Smith

1998), it remains secondary to denominations, at least in part because most

surveys include denominations but not religious identities.An understanding of the nature of variation in religious identities in American

society thus cannot be divorced from the historical connections between reli-


7/36

536 Alwin et al.

critical to the identities of individuals, other aspects of religious movements

are equally important. A critical issue in the understanding of Protestant reli-

gious identification has focused on how to characterize conservative religions

response to modernity (Marsden 1980). Throughout the past century there

have been a number of theological divisions along a liberal-conservative

dimension (Hadden 1995; Wuthnow 1988a, 1988b). Prominent within Protes-

tant denominations was the emergence of fundamentalism. It is generally

agreed that fundamentalism resulted from a reaction against the emergence of

liberal and scientific thoughtobtaining its name from 12 booklets published

between 1910 and 1915 called The Fundamentals, which articulated what

the authors considered to be the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith

(Ahlstrom 1972, pp. 81516). Conservative Protestant religious identities are

tied historically to this movement in American Protestantism, and while the

term has gone out of fashion (both in academic circles and among conserva-

tive Protestants themselves), the concept of fundamentalism embodies an

objective set of standards against which Protestant religions can be evaluated

(e.g., T. Smith 1990), as well as a set of subjective categories that can be

applied as an alternative, which may or may not correspond to objective defi-

nitions (C. Smith et al. 1998).

Another concept that is relevant to recent historical Protestant religious

identifications is the term evangelical, which in many circles has come to

embrace the general notion of theologically conservative Protestantism

(Hunter 1987, p. 3). This term was prominent in eighteenth- and nineteenth-

century Protestantism and referred generally to an emphasis on the authority

of the New Testament in opposition to the institutional authority of the church

itself, an emphasis on the belief that salvation is achieved by personal conver-

sion to faith in the atonement of Christ, and often marked by an ardent or zeal-

ous enthusiasm for the religious cause. More recently (especially since the late

1970s) the term has been used in a fashion that eschews reference to a desig-

nation of fundamentalist but still holds to a conservative interpretation of the

Bible.

Thus, while the term conservative is more often applied in the political

arena, an argument can be made for the use of either of these terms

evangelical or fundamentalistas a reflection of a disposition to preserve

or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change or adaptation

to modern scientific thinking. Analysts tend to prefer one or the other of these

terms for particular lines of religious tradition; and while there may some

value in maintaining these distinctions, we believe a solution to this issue is

probably not possible.2 Suffice it to say that both are a type of conservative

religionand there are probably more similarities than there are differences.

In the following analysis we employ both concepts, but we do so primarily


8/36


because of the way in which they are used in the approaches we compare. 3 In

addition, there are at least two additional elements of religious historytwo

recent trends that must be addressed in any discussion of the historical founda-

tions of religious identities. The first is the fact that there are increasing num-

bers of nondenominational responses to standard survey questions about

religious preferences (Woodberry and Smith 1998). The second involves the

temporal growth in the no religious preference category in American soci-

ety (see Hout and Fischer 2002).

The Measurement of Religious Identities

From the point of view of measuring religious identities in a contextually

valid manner, it is important to understand the critical elements involved inthe standard approaches employed in survey measurement of religion. As

noted above, Lenski (1961) employed a denominational approach to measur-

ing religious identity, using a series of questions that is now typical of the

standard approach to measuring denominational identity. There are two

important features to this approach. First, in a world of religious denomina-

tions, nothing could be more fundamental than unique designations of group

differences. It is essential therefore to tap the meaning that matters to the

individuals themselves. Except for the differentiation between major denomi-

national categoriesCatholic, Protestant, Jewish, or something elsethedenominational approach is entirely open-ended. Specifically, Protestants are

allowed to self-identify in the sense that they may mention any religious

group, whether recognized by the investigator or not, and they may reject

standard denominational labels altogether. Second, through the use of detailed

coding of the responses to these types of questions, combined with other

information, this approach can then be used to construct categories of reli-

gious denomination that reflect dimensions of interest, such as religious con-

servatism (T. Smith 1990). There are, however, serious difficulties that arise

in the use of these approaches when respondents provide a nondenomina-tional affiliation or do not provide a denomination that can be classified into

standard categories (see Steensland et al. 2000).

In contrast to this approach, other investigators have urged the measure-

ment of other forms of religious identity that can be employed to represent key

variation in the religious sphere. Christian Smith and his colleagues (1998),

for example, advocate an approach that involves self-identifications relying

on the measurement of religious identities rooted in labels associated with

twentieth-century religious movements, such as evangelical, fundamentalist,

3. Another subdivision of conservative Protestantism with origins at the beginning of the twentiethcentury refers to a subset of denominations that are considered Pentecostal, a reference that per-


9/36

538 Alwin et al.

mainline Protestant, and liberal Protestant (Smith et al. 1998, p. 233).

Although the authors refer to this as an approach involving self-identifications,

the measures do not involve open-ended questions. Unlike the denominational

approach discussed above, the subjective identification approach relies on a

fixed set of categories reflecting the religious identities thought to be relevant

by the investigators and therefore are not self-identifications in the same

sense as the measures of denominational identities are.

Data and Methods

Here we employ data from the General Social Survey (GSS), a periodic cross-

sectional survey of the noninstitutionalized household population of the conti-

nental United States aged 18 years and older (see Davis and Smith 2003). Itwas conducted nearly annually since 1972 on approximately 1,500 respon-

dents per year (surveys were not conducted in 1979, 1981, and 1992), and

beginning in 1994 it became a biennial survey interviewing approximately

3,000 respondents at each time. During the first few years of the GSS, the

samples were either entirely or in part nonprobability samples, but since 1977

a full probability household sample has been employed. Beginning in 1973,

respondents were asked to report the religious affiliation in which they were

raised, as well as their current religious affiliation. As of the writing of this

article, both questions have been included in 25 national cross-sectional sur-veys, although changes in the manner in which religious denominations were

classified place limitations on the usefulness of the entire GSS series. We

focus solely on data from the GSS series from 1984 through 2002 for current

religious affiliation only (see T. Smith 1990).4

For purposes of this analysis, we employ the GSS question on religious

preference as the denominational approach to measuring religious identity, as

follows: What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish,

some other religion, or no religion? (If Protestant) What specific denomination

is that? (If Jewish) Do you consider yourself Orthodox, Conservative,Reform, or none of these? We employ the following categories of religious

identity: (1) ProtestantConservative denomination; (2) Protestant

Nonconservative denomination; (3) ProtestantAfrican-American denomination;

(4) ProtestantNo denomination given or nondenominational church; (5)

Catholic; (6) Jewish; (7) Other religions; and (8) No religious preference.5 In

developing these categories we rely principally on the influential work of Tom

Smith (1990) and Steensland et al. (2000), although we employ some slight

modifications for our present purposes. Specifically, for the purpose of

4. We employ GSS data from 1984 and after due to the inadequacy of the GSS religion codes


10/36


estimating differences among religious groups we employ two strategies

one that uses Tom Smiths (1990) distinctions between fundamentalist and

nonfundamentalist denominations, and a second that employs the Steensland

et al.s (2000) distinctions between evangelical and mainline Protestant

denominations. Finally, we should note that the other religious adherents cate-

gory is relatively small and heterogeneousit contains both other, specified

non-Western religions and Protestant groups that cannot be easily classified

into any of our other categories.

In addition to these questions, in 1996 and 1998 the following question was

employed to obtain a subjective assessment of religious identity: (If Protes-

tant) When it comes to your religious identity, would you say you are a fun-

damentalist, evangelical, mainline, or liberal Protestant, or do none of these

describe you? In the 2000 survey the following question was employed:

When it comes to your religious identity, would you say you are a Pentecos-

tal, fundamentalist, evangelical, mainline, or liberal Protestant, or do none of

these describe you? In the 2000 survey respondents were allowed to give up

to three different responses; however, this was followed up with a query that

asked for the one that best describes what you are. We rely on the latter

response in some cases in the present analysis.6 In the 1998 and 2000 surveys

an effort was made to assess the religious identities of Catholics as well, and

in these two surveys Catholics were asked the following question: When it

comes to your religious identity, would you say you are a traditional, moder-

ate, or liberal Catholic, or do none of these describe you? 7 While we focus

primarily on Protestant identities in this article, we do include respondents

with non-Protestant identities (using the denominational approach) in the

main body of our analyses in order to gauge the location of Protestants relative

to other groups on the criterion variables.

For purposes of evaluating the utility of these various approaches to mea-

suring religious identity, we employ four dependent variables as criteria (the

text of the survey question is given in parentheses):

1. Belief in Biblical literalism (Which of these statements comes closestto describing your feelings about the Bible? (a) The Bible is the actual

word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word; (b) The Bible is

the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken liter-

ally, word for word; (c) The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends,

history, and moral precepts recorded by men.)

2. Belief in an afterlife (Do you believe there is a life after death? Yes or

no?)

6. We use the first response as the main source of information for this variable, except for cases


11/36

540 Alwin et al.

3. Frequency of prayer(About how often do you pray? Several times a

day, once a day, several times a week, once a week, less than once a

week, never, dont know?)

4. Frequency of church attendance (How often do you attend religious

services? Never, less than once a year, about once or twice a year, sev-

eral times a year, about once a month, two to three times a month,

nearly every week, every week, several times a week, dont know?)

The first two of thesebelief in Biblical literalism and belief in an

afterlifewere treated as 10 outcomes, and we employed logistic regression

in their prediction.8 Belief in Biblical literalism contrasted those who believe

the Bible is the actual word to all other responses, and belief in an afterlife

contrasted those who responded yes to those saying no. The frequency of

prayer was measured using the following categories: several times a day; oncea day; several times a week; once a week; less than once a week; and never.

The frequency of church attendance was measured as follows: every week,

several times a week; nearly every week; two to three times a month; about

once a month; several times a year; about once or twice a year; less than once

a year; and never. Ordered logistic regression techniques were employed in

the prediction of the frequency of prayer and church attendance. We chose

these four variablesBiblical literalism, belief in the afterlife, prayer fre-

quency, and church attendancebecause they are widely considered to be

valid measures of religious belief and behavior, and therefore they suit ourpurposes as indicators of the influence of religious identifications.9

Results

We present the results of the two basic approaches to measuring religious

identities. We first present the univariate distributions of the subjective reli-

gious identities obtained in the 199698 and 2000 GSS surveys and compare

these results with similar distributions obtained using the denominational

identity approach. In the latter case we employ both the approaches due to

8. We reduced the measure of Biblical literalism to two categories (three were used in the surveyquestion) in order to focus on the contrast between literalism and all other responses. We alsoexplored three additional belief measures from the GSSbelief in heaven, hell, and religiousmiraclesresults for which we do not report here. Data for these measures exist for only one-third of the GSS sample in 1998, and results are therefore somewhat less dependable. Moreover,these measures are considerably less informative since there is much less variation in these vari-ables than in the other criterion variables, results for which are presented here. We present onlythose results for measures that are available in both 1996 and 1998 and that provide sufficient

variation across the sample and a sufficient number of cases on which to test our hypotheses.9. On Biblical literalism as an indicator of religious beliefs, see, for example, Achtenmeier(1980); Boone (1989); Greeley (1993); and Ellison and Sherkat (1993). Studies of belief in the


12/36


Tom Smith (1990) and Steensland et al. (2000). Following the presentation of

the univariate results, we then cross-tabulate the two denominational

approaches using the 19842002 GSS data in order to demonstrate their key

differences, leading to a comparison of the Steensland et al. (2000) approach

to the subjective approaches employed in the 199698 and 2000 GSS surveys.

Finally, we predict the four criterion variablesbelief in Biblical literalism,

belief in an afterlife, frequency of prayer, and frequency of church attendance

and summarize the relative ability of these different approaches to measuring

religious identity to predict variation in these outcomes.

Table 1 presents the distributions of subjective religious identification for

respondents who responded Protestant to the GSS question: What is your

religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or

no religion? Two percentage distributions are given in the table for each set

of surveys: one for all respondents and one for Protestants alone.10 The results

for the two sets of surveys appear to be quite different for reasons that are not

altogether clear, although there are some similarities. A major difference in

the two sets of results is that there are substantially fewer No answer,

Dont know, and Other responses recorded in the 2000 survey. We cannot

account for these differences in terms of the manner in which the question was

posed. There are also substantially more None responses in the 2000 survey.

The source of the discrepancy appears to be related in part to the relatively

fewer numbers of responses referred to above (No answer, etc.), but also in

part to a diminished frequency of response involving mainline Protestant.11

We speculate, although we have no firm basis for this, that the 2000 survey

involved additional probing, which reduced the number of Dont know, No

answer, and Other responses, creating a substantially greater number of

None responses in the 2000 survey compared with what was present in the

199698 surveys without the additional probing.

One of the problems with forced-choice questions is that they may suggest

responses that may not have been on the respondents mind (Schuman and

Presser 1981). Thus, if the desired approach is to employ self-identifications

(e.g., C. Smith et al. 1998), then an open-ended question might have been better.

10. We should note that given the tendency for some groups that are historically derivative of theProtestant faith and other nondenominational Protestants to avoid the Protestant label, there areunderstandably some Protestants in the non-Protestant category.11. The responses obtained from respondents to the General Social Survey differed somewhatfrom the responses Christian Smith reports from his Evangelical Identity and Influence Survey(EIIS), conducted from 1995 to 1997. While the GSS presented respondents with a none cate-gory, Smiths survey did not present this option. Moreover, Smiths survey included one addi-tional probe about religious identity. For these reasons, more respondents in Smiths surveyidentified with one of the religious identities they were offered than in the GSS. Smith et al.

(1998) reported results only for respondents who attended church more often than once a monthor indicated that religion was very important. We compared the GSS results for 1998 with theSmith et al. (1998) results, finding that the lack of a none category raises the number of people


13/36

e

1.

DistributionofSubjective

ReligiousSelf-Identificatio

ns:GeneralSocialSurveys,199698and2000

R

eligiousSelf-Identification

GSS199698

GSS2000

Frequency

Total(%)

Protestant(%)

Frequency

Total(%)

Protestant(%)

ostal

118

4.33

8.67

mentalist

238

4.26

9.97

75

2.73

5.46

lical

296

5.29

12.37

124

4.52

9.06

ne

399

7.14

16.70

164

5.99

11.98

356

6.37

14.89

200

7.33

14.68

756

13.52

31.64

612

22.38

44.81

SPECIFY)

81

1.45

3.39

33

1.21

2.42

Know

28

0.51

1.18

9

0.33

0.66

wer

235

4.21

9.86

31

1.13

2.26

3201

57.26

1368

50.05

5591

100.00

100.00

2733

100.00

100.00


14/36


Our results support the conventional wisdomthat what you get depends

entirely on what you askalthough there are interesting findings resulting from

the comparison of the 199698 and 2000 surveys. Despite the presentation of

three (Pentecostal, fundamentalist, and evangelical), rather than two (funda-

mentalist and evangelical), conservative categories, the relative proportion of

conservative responses is nearly identical in the two sets of surveys (22.3 per-

cent in 199698 and 23.2 percent in 2000). Pentecostals appear to choose the

identity that best suits them in a particular contexteither fundamentalist or

evangelical, rather than choosing None and downwardly biasing the estimate

of the proportion of conservative Protestants.

In Table 2 we compare the univariate distributions of the subjective reli-

gious identification measures with the denominational religious identification

measures. Here we display the distributions for four approaches: (1) a modi-

fied version of Tom Smiths (1990) approach to classifying Protestants

(defined by denomination), using FUND to define conservative and non-

conservative Protestants; (2) the RELTRAD approach of Steensland et al.

(2000) to classifying evangelical (conservative) and mainline (nonconser-

vative) Protestants; (3) the 199698 GSS subjective identity approach; and

(4) the 2000 GSS subjective identity approach.12 The table also presents the

distribution that includes Catholics, Jewish, Other, and Black Protestants

(using RELTRAD to define this category, see Steensland et al. 2000). In this

table the two denominational approaches are applied to the combined 1996

2000 GSS data.

These results support several conclusions. First, given the reliance on a

common question to define the relative proportion of Protestants, all approaches

generally agree that slightly less than one-half of GSS respondents identify

themselves as Protestant, but the allocation of the respondents to categories

within Protestantism is quite different depending on the approach taken. Sec-

ond, the Smith (1990) and Steensland et al. (2000) approaches differ in their

allocation of Protestants to conservative and nonconservative categories.

Specifically, the Steensland et al. (2000) RELTRAD approach classifies sub-

stantially more Protestants as conservative and fewer as nonconservative.

Third, the denominational approach produces vastly more classifiable respon-

dents, owing we believe to the ambiguity of the categories employed in the

subjective identification approach. Some of these categories may be more rec-

ognizable than others. Christian Smith et al. (1998) argue, for example, that

the evangelical label may be one that enjoys greater recognition in contempo-

rary society. On the other hand, the term mainline Protestant may be one that

is not in common use in the general population. For example, a respondent

may know that s/he is a United Methodist or Evangelical Lutheran, but may


15/36

e

2.

DistributionofDenominationalReligiousIdentitiesandSubjectiveReligiousIdentities:GeneralSocia

lSurveys,

98and

2000

DenominationalIdentity

SubjectiveIdentity

ModifiedSmith(1990)

Steenslandetal.(2000)

G

SS19962000

GSS19962000

GSS

199698

GSS

2000

Frequency

Total(%)

Frequency

Total(%)

Frequency

Total(%)

Frequency

Total(%)

vativeProtestant

14

87

19.21

1706

22.04

477

9.55

281

10.22

nservativeProtestant

15

71

20.30

1203

15.54

656

13.13

317

11.56

Protesta

nt

5

93

7.66

593

7.66

355

7.10

238

8.67

antanswerunclassifiable

0

0.00

176

2.27

673

13.48

508

18.51

antdontknow/noanswer

25

0.32

25

0.32

164

3.28

34

1.22

rotestant

36

76

47.49

3703

47.83

2325

46.54

1378

50.18

cs

21

45

27.71

2145

27.71

1428

28.58

717

26.11

1

73

2.23

173

2.23

110

2.20

63

2.28

Religions

5

76

7.44

550

7.10

363

7.27

186

6.79

igion

11

23

14.51

1123

14.51

726

14.53

398

14.49

ndontknow/noanswer

48

0.62

48

0.62

44

0.88

4

0.14

ample

7741

7741

4995

27

46


16/36


not know that sociologists of religion consider these mainline religions, and

therefore may not incorporate such a concept into his/her religious identity.

In order to compare the denominational and subjective approaches, we

employ the Steensland et al. (2000) approach and cross-classify respondents

in categories of this scheme with the categories employed in the 199698 GSS

(table 3) and the 2000 GSS (table 4) for Protestant denominations only. What

these tables, taken together, illustrate is that there is quite a wide variety of

subjective labels chosen for members of a given denominational category.

Nearly as many conservative Protestants consider themselves nonconser-

vative when they are asked to use the subjective categories. For example,

taking the first row of table 3, we can see that of those respondents classified

as Evangelical Protestants in the Steensland et al. (2000) scheme, some 11.5

percent consider themselves fundamentalist, 13 percent as evangelical,

11percent as mainline, 9 percent as liberal, and 23 percent as none. In

the largest Protestant denominationthe Southern Baptist Convention

(SBC)essentially equal percentages (28.3 and 32.5, respectively) of people

identify as conservative (fundamentalist or evangelical) versus nonconserva-

tive (mainline or liberal) Protestants (data not shown). The same result does

not apply to the Mainline Protestantsmost of them (35 percent) consider

themselves nonconservative (i.e., mainline or liberal), and only about 11

percent consider themselves conservative. These examples are borne out in

table 4 as well. Needless to say, there is nota close correspondence between

subjective identities and standard denominational categories.

There are several observations that can be made about these results. First,

there is a relationship between ambiguities in religious identities across the

two (denominational versus subjective) approaches. Higher percentages of

people who gave vague denominational responses also gave None, Dont

know, and Other responses on the subjective measure. For example, about

50 percent of the Protestant respondents giving a nondenominational or no

denomination response chose None/Dont know/Other categories. Second,

the detailed examination of these tables reveals that higher percentages of

people belonging to mainline denominations self-identify as mainline or

liberal than do people belonging to conservative denominations subscribe to

fundamentalist or evangelical identities. Third, as would be expected, the

smaller denominations in the evangelical group, when aggregated, are more

likely to self-identify as fundamentalist or evangelical than members of

larger evangelical denominations. Smaller denominations should be more

homogeneous, since their sometimes sect-like quality reinforces distinctive-

ness among group members. Even so, the percentage of people belonging to

the smaller evangelical denominations who self-identify as fundamentalist

or evangelical is no larger than the percentage of people in mainline

denominations who self-identify as mainline or liberal.


17/36

e

3.

Cross-TabulationofDenominationalIdentityandSubjectiveIdentity:GeneralSocialSurveys,199698

TherowsofthistableemploycategoriesdefinedbytheapproachofSteenslandetal.(2000).

SubjectiveIdentity

Fundamental

Evangelical

Mainline

Liberal

None

Other

DK

N/A

Missing

Total

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

licalProtestant

161.00

184.00

155.00

125.00

316.00

41.00

18.00

87.00

314.00

1400.0

0

67.56

62.16

38.72

35.03

41.86

50.66

62.27

37.10

9.80

25.0

4

Row%

11.49

13.13

11.04

8.90

22.60

2.93

1.26

6.24

22.41

100.0

0

neProtestant

39.00

71.00

186.00

153.00

230.00

15.00

6.00

34.00

222.00

956.0

0

16.33

23.96

46.60

43.11

30.37

18.42

22.64

14.48

6.94

17.1

1

Row%

4.07

7.41

19.44

16.04

24.01

1.56

0.67

3.57

23.23

100.0

0

Protesta

nt

30.00

32.00

49.00

53.00

142.00

19.00

2.00

21.00

107.00

454.0

0

12.53

10.81

12.28

14.97

18.75

23.03

7.55

8.82

3.33

8.1

2

Row%

6.57

7.04

10.80

11.74

31.22

4.11

0.47

4.58

23.47

100.0

0


18/36

e

4.

Cross-TabulationofDenominationalIdentityandSubjectiveIdentity:GeneralSocialSurveys,2000

TherowsofthistableemploycategoriesdefinedbytheapproachofSteenslandetal.(2000).

SubjectiveIdentity

PentecostalFundamentalEvangelical

MainlineLiberal

None

Other

DK

N/A

Missing

Total

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

Col%

licalProtestant

71.00

55.00

79.00

60.00

58.00

220.00

18.00

5.00

11.00

34.00

611.0

0

59.91

74.29

64.22

36.48

28.99

35.98

53.23

58.82

34.52

2.45

22.3

4

Row%

11.61

9.08

13.00

9.77

9.51

36.04

2.88

0.87

1.75

5.50

100.0

0

neProtestant

10.00

11.00

37.00

77.00

97.00

185.00

7.00

1.00

13.00

2.00

441.0

0

8.56

15.00

30.17

46.91

48.67

30.31

20.97

11.77

41.42

0.12

16.1

2

Row%

2.30

2.54

8.46

17.41

22.13

42.08

1.57

0.24

2.90

0.36

100.0

0

Protesta

nt

31.00

6.00

4.00

22.00

25.00

132.00

4.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

238.0

0

26.13

7.86

3.45

13.36

12.23

21.52

12.90

29.41

15.43

0.51

8.6

9

Row%

13.01

2.47

1.79

9.19

10.32

55.39

1.79

1.12

2.01

2.92

100.0

0


19/36

548 Alwin et al.

considerable diversity within denominational categories in the subjective

identities respondents apply to themselves. It appears, then, that while there is

some overlap, whatever it is that these two approaches to measuring religious

identity capture, it does not necessarily appear to be the same thing. The above

results support the conclusion that the two approaches seem to be measuring

somewhat different things. The SBC example given above is one prominent

example of why it may be important to consider both denominational identity

and subjective identity in classifying Protestants. As noted by Ammerman

(1987, 1990), the SBC is rife with internal division. In the 1980s, as the SBC

showed signs of liberal drift, conservatives fought back, gaining control and

inciting the resentment of self-styled moderates, who were still theologically

conservative but were more flexible and tolerant of diversity in scriptural

interpretation. More recently, Ammerman (1990) argues, the fundamentalists

were in power, but the base followers were a much more diverse group. The

battles that occurred in the mid-1980s both reflected and may have further

promoted mainline self-identification in some congregations. Despite this

internal dissension, the denomination avoided schism in part because the SBC

denominational identity is still strong. The Southern Baptist belief that they

are Gods Chosen PeopleGods Last and Only Hopereinforces the

point we will make more clearly below, that a reliance on subjective identity

alone, without regard for denominational identity, may illustrate why the

failure to acknowledge relevant church history can lead one astray.

In large denominations like the SBC, individuals may both echo and react

against their denomination in forging a religious identity. This may also apply

to non-Protestant groups, such as Catholics, although we are limiting our

empirical attention in this article to the religious identities of Protestants.

Abbott (2001) has observed the tendency for persons in groups to subdivide

themselves into self-similar smaller groups. This could to some extent

describe the contentious factions in the SBC. Despite a strong group identity

that informs their sociopolitical beliefs and attitudes, they also divide into fun-

damentalist/evangelical and moderate/liberal factions in reaction to each

other. A similar process occurs in other denominations, even though theological

differences within denominations may at times be rather slight. Ammerman

(1990) notes, for example, that although both SBC factions are theologically

conservative, individuals perceive the differences among their peers to be

large, and they may react accordingly in considering a subjective religious

identity presented by questions posed by a survey researcher.

In order to evaluate the extent to which these measures produce predictable

relationships, we present patterns of associations of the categories of subjec-

tive religious identities with aspects of religious belief and behavior (belief in

Biblical literalism, belief in an afterlife, frequency of prayer, and frequency of

church attendance) in the 199698 GSS data within the three Protestant


20/36


possibility of reciprocal relationships between these criterion variables and the

measures of religious identity, we think of this exercise therefore as one

involving prediction rather than one of determining the substantive

effects of one set of variables on the other. We thus approach this task from

the point of view of establishing the predictive or criterion-related validity

of the two approaches to measuring religious identity.13 The four measures we

have chosen to establish predictive validity are useful in discerning the com-

parative predictiveness of subjective and denominational religious identities,

given that people who adopt more conservative religious identities should

have higher levels of commitment to their faith. According to Stark and Finke

(2000, pp. 14447), this is in part because religious groups that are in higher

tension with their surroundings, such as more conservative, sect-like groups,

will tend to require much more from their members. In exchange for receiving

higher religious rewards from their religious groups, members of sect-like

groups will tend to express a more otherworldly set of religious beliefs, dem-

onstrate a more Bible-centered religious disciple, endorse the importance of

prayer, and participate at higher levels than members of less sect-like religious

groups. Faced with relatively high demands from their faith, those who adopt

more sect-like religious identities are faced with the choice of either partici-

pating at higher levels on these dimensions of belief and behavior or disaffili-

ating altogether.

The results in figures 14 provide strong evidence that the subjective mea-

sures of religious identity are related in predictable ways to aspects of reli-

gious belief and behavior, independent of denominational identities. Generally

speakingbut not alwaysthe ordering of the categories is consistent across

denominational categories. The clearest example of this involves the measure

of belief in Biblical literalism. Predictably, self-identified fundamentalists

within each of the three denominational categories have the highest proportion

of agreement with the statement that the Bible is the actual word of God and

is to be taken literally; liberals have the lowest level of agreement within

each group. The other groups are ordered in predictable fashion. Overall,

black Protestants have the highest endorsement of Biblical literalism, followed

by conservative Protestants and nonconservative Protestants.

Results for belief in an afterlife present a less predictable pattern. In this

case it is evangelicals who have the highest endorsement of belief in an

afterlife, with the exception of the nonconservative Protestant denominations

where it is the self-identified fundamentalists who are most likely to endorse

this belief. Protestants responding none to the subjective identification question

13. There are other criterion variables that can be used, but because we are measuring religiousidentities, we believe this exercise requires specifically religious criterion variables. Although theapproach of Lenski (1961) and the contributors to the Leege and Kellstedt (1993) volume focuses


21/36

e

1.

Predictedprobabilitiesofb

eliefthattheBibleistheactualwordofGodamongP

rotestants.


22/36

e

2.

Predictedprobabilitiesofb

eliefintheafterlifeamong

Protestants.


23/36

e

3.

Predictedprobabilitiesofp

rayingmorethanonceperdayamongProtestants.


24/36

e

4.

PredictedprobabilitiesofattendingchurchmorethanonceperweekamongProtestants.


25/36


26/36

e

5.

LogisticRegressionResultsforReligiousBeliefsGSS19

96,1998

BiblicalLiteralism

BeliefinanAfterlife

AllRespondents

N

=(2,782)

P

rotestants

N

=(1,016)

AllR

espondents

N

=(2,520)

Protestants

N=

(926)

rVariables

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

AD

gelical

7.126***

4.242*

**

3.528***

4.250***

1.320

1.191

ine

1.752***

2.952***

Protestant

3.974***

2.922*

**

2.990***

2.742***

1.195

1.297

lic

1.308*

2.324***

h

1.201

0.546**

2.091***

2.279***

D mentalist

3.086***

1.288

gelical

1.876***

2.332*

al

0.507***

0.922

0.963

0.486**

0.919

1.016

OLVA

RIABLES

tion(centeredat12)

0.863***

0.874***

0.904*

**

0.893***

1.042**

1.060***

1.092**

1.069

ofbirth

(centeredat1960)

0.992***

0.996

0.996

0.999

1.001

1.006

1.005

1.010


27/36

5. 01..001.

e

5.

(Continued)

BiblicalLiteralism

BeliefinanAfterlife

AllRespondents

N

=(2,782)

P

rotestants

N

=(1,016)

AllR

espondents

N

=(2,520)

Protestants

N=

(926)

rVariables

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

ofsurve

y(centeredat1996)

1.054

1.096**

1.016

1.005

1.018

1.049

0.902

0.892

me(centeredatmean)

0.991***

0.993***

0.995

0.995

0.998

0.999

1.008

1.008

ernresidence

1.527***

1.235*

1.379*

*

1.452**

1.094

0.976

0.853

0.860

er(female)

1.041

0.996

0.902

0.974

1.209*

1.121

0.889

0.893

2.471***

2.120***

1.778*

1.750*

0.684***

0.651**

0.464**

0.432**

elihood

2940.693

2664.251

1153.348

1101.761

2203.206

2105.745

611.137

589.884

R2

0.120

0.242

0.185

0.251

0.012

0.085

0.077

0.148

nttoR2

0.122***

0.066***

0.073***

0.071

mespredictedcorrectly

72.90

74.59

64.47

68.01

82.62

82.62

88.88

88.77


28/36

6.O

rderedLogitRegressionResultsforReligiousBehaviors

GSS1996,1998

FrequencyofPrayer

ReligiousServiceAttendance

AllR

espondents

N=(1,596)

Protestants

N=

(720)

AllResp

ondents

N=(1

,560)

Protestants

N=(701)

rVariables

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

AD

gelical

8.619***

2.452***

2.153***

15.733***

2.536***

2.022***

ine

3.990***

6.538***

Protestant

3.480***

1.451

1.535

7.957***

1.296

1.247

lic

4.660***

8.465***

h

0.755

4.108***

7.720***

7.030***

D mentalist

1.295

1.592*

gelical

1.655

2.935***

al

0.488***

0.486***

0.446***

0.419***

0.560

0.874

OLVA

RIABLES

tion(centeredat12)

1.054*

1.066**

1.089*

1.071*

1.075***

1.109***

1.111***

1.076**

ofbirth

(centeredat1960)

0.974***

0.977***

0.976***

0.980***

0.982***

0.986***

0.989*

0.995

ofsurve

y(centeredat1996)

0.998

1.021

1.071

1.081

1.030

1.094**

1.181**

1.165**

me(centeredatmean)

0.992***

0.994**

0.998

0.999

0.999

0.999

1.002

1.004

ernresidence

1.370**

1.238

1.260

1.330

1.092

0.935

1.067

1.087

er(female)

1.729***

1.660***

1.994***

2.250***

1.480***

1.355***

1.310*

1.376**

2.431***

3.427***

2.381*

2.477*

1.966***

2.229***

2.222***

2.453***


29/36

5. 01..001.

6.(

Continued)

FrequencyofPrayer

ReligiousServiceAttendance

AllR

espondents

N=(1,596)

Protestants

N=

(720)

AllResp

ondents

N=(1

,560)

Protestants

N=(701)

rVariables

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

HOLDS

ld1

3.526***

2.465***

4.975***

5.432***

1.193***

0.434***

1.703***

2.249***

ld2

0.580***

0.750***

0.591**

0.990***

0.566***

1.187***

0.745***

1.266***

ld3

0.125

1.269***

0.009

0.381

0.091***

1.966

0.088

0.388

ld4

0.590***

2.059***

0.976***

0.647**

0.698***

2.676

0.849

0.437

ld5

2.007***

3.567***

2.391***

2.135***

1.030***

3.051***

1.211***

0.834***

ld6

1.481***

3.547***

1.735***

1.421***

ld7

1.783***

3.872***

2.073***

1.798**

ld8

3.221***

5.373

3.379***

3.214

elihood

2481.547

2365.981

1041.418

1014.951

7806.550

7397.263

2702.810

2614.283

R2

0.032

0.077

0.047

0.072

0.013

0.065

0.023

0.055

nttoR2

0.045***

0.025**

0.052***

0.032***


30/36


It is clear from these regressions that both the objective, denominational-

based identities and the subjective religious identity variables contribute

significant portions of explained variance. The coefficients for the

RELTRAD dummy variables in model 2 indicate that there are substantial

differences among denominational categories in their religious beliefs and

behavior, across all dependent variables. These denominational identities

contributed significant increments to R2.122 in the case of the belief in

Biblical literalism, .073 for the belief in an afterlife, .045 for frequency of

prayer, and .052 for frequency of church attendance.15 In all cases these fac-

tors exceed the contribution to the explained variance attributable to the set

of controls variables taken alone (see model 1). Looking at the models esti-

mated for Protestants alone, as expected on the basis of the figures presented

above, the subjective identity variables make a significant contribution to

the prediction of religious beliefs and behaviors across all dependent vari-

ables, net of the denominational identities. The increments to R2 in this case

are .066 for the belief in Biblical literalism, .071 for belief in an afterlife,

.025 for the frequency of prayer, and .032 for frequency of church atten-

dance. The patterns suggested by the coefficients in these models fit the

graphic portrayal of these same data in figures 14. Of course, the regres-

sion models are additive in the sense that the effects of the subjective iden-

tity variables are constrained equal across religious denominations. In order

to evaluate this constraint we examined a fifth model for each of our crite-

rion variables, which included a set of interactions between the denomina-

tional identity and subjective identity variables (results not presented here).

These results indicate that for the most part the interaction terms were not

significant, although there were a few instances where the pattern of means

for the subjective identity categories was not parallel across denominational

categories, as the patterns in figures 14 suggest. These departures from

additivity were registered in the analyses of interaction effects, but taken as

a whole the interactions produced a significant contribution to explained

variance in only one casebelief in an afterlifebut the results in this case

were ambiguous due to substantial multicollinearity among the interaction

and main effect terms. In summary, there was not much to be learned by

including the interactions, and the weight of the evidence suggests that the

denominational and subjective identity measures both contribute impor-

tantly (and additively) to the prediction of variation in the criterion variables

studied here.

15. We employ pseudoR2

coefficients and increments to pseudoR2

in this analysis to evalu-ate their explanatory power (see DeMaris 2002). Also, for the logistic regression models (table 5),we present the percent of outcomes predicted correctly (see Long 1997, pp. 1047) in order to


31/36

560 Alwin et al.

Conclusions

Is there a gold standard for assessing religious identities? In some quarters,

the answer to this question is likely to be yes. The denominational approach

has dominated the terrain for nearly a half-century. Others have questionedthese traditional practices, and recent research has shown that there is nothing

sacred about this approach, especially given the increasing numbers of nonde-

nominational Christians and others who do not identify with traditional

denominational categories. Given the need to capture those dimensions that

are most salient to understanding individual religious identities, it makes a

great deal of sense to consider using the subjective assessments of religious

identitythe so-called self-identification approach. We believe such an

approach has great potential, but there are several problems with its applica-

tion, and there is much more work that needs to be done. We consider thebasic idea to be sound, but as the above results illustrate, it appears to be

highly dependent on the particular response categories employed and the extent

of effort undertaken on the part of interviewers to secure a valid response.

Moreover, there are large numbers of respondents that are unclassifiable using

the subjective approach, at least as implemented in the GSS interviews.

The most striking finding presented herein involves the amount of variabil-

ity that there is in subjective religious identities within denominational catego-

ries. Our results suggest that a combination of the two approaches may be the

most valid approach to measuring religious identity. We therefore find our-selves in at least partial agreement with scholars who have recently argued in

favor of the subjective identities approach to the measurement of religion.

Christian Smith and colleagues (1998, p. 233) have argued, standard approaches

to using denominations (organizational locations) and theology (belief posi-

tions) in religious research, when done well, can offer helpful ways to situate

people in religious identity-space . . . [and] that registering peoples identifica-

tion with different historical religious traditions provides another effective

means of mapping the terrain of religious identity. We find that each type of

variable appears to measure something different, and to the extent that the cri-terion variables we have examined heremeasures of beliefs and religious

practicesare standards against which to evaluate the predictive validity of

the measures, we have to conclude that both are equally valid. The results pre-

sented here point toward the general conclusion that there is a predictable pat-

terning to subjective religious identities within denominational categories.

Indeed, this supports the conclusions of Hout and Wilde (2004), who argue

that the distinction between subjective and denominational identities should

not be drawn too heavily, as those who are strong members of a denomination

are slightly more likely to identify with one of the four religious movementsidentified by Christian Smith and colleagues (1998). These patterns of overlap


32/36


there is substantial support for the conclusion that subjective identities are pre-

dictably related to these criteria.

Although there is evidence that the subjective assessments add something to

the explanation of aspects of religious belief and behavior, we believe they are

probably best thought of as supplementary rather than substitute measures. The

denominational and subjective approaches each contribute something unique.

There is a certain amount of exclusive variance attributable to each, in that each

contributes to the predictable variance in our criterion measures while controlling

for the other. Specifically, the addition of the subjective religious identity catego-

ries to a model that includes the denominational religious identity categories pro-

duces significantly greater explained variance. And in this same model the

addition of the subjective religious identity categories does not remove (i.e., does

not completely mediate) the effects of the objective denominational categories.

These results, consistent with those reported by others (see Kellstedt and

Smidt 1991; Wilcox, Jelen, and Leege 1993), suggest that there may be some

benefits to using both approaches. There are several advantages to the denom-

inational approach, among which is the fact that it is essentially open-ended.

In contrast to the GSS studies of subjective identification reviewed here, the

denominational approach does not force a set of categories on the respondent,

beyond the broad categories of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, other, and none.

In addition, the denominational approach has a proven track record, and at

least two classification systems are available to researchers (T. Smith 1990;

Steensland et al. 2000) that reveal a great deal of overlap. There are, however,

problems with implementing such classification systems, owing to the ambi-

guity of the denominational information provided by respondents, as discussed

above, and discrepancies that arise in about 4 percent of the cases. Such mea-

surement can clearly be improved, and this may be one area in which subjec-

tive information can be quite helpful in building denominational classification

systems that have an improved degree of reliability. In addition, and more

important, the use of subjective placement may assist in achieving greater

understanding of important variation in religious identities within denomina-

tional categories that may reflect greater ecological validity in the representation

of the faith communities within which religious identities are embedded.

Whether these are conceptualized as churches or congregations or some

other type of religious community, based on the evidence presented here we

believe that, in combination with denominational referents (if relevant), the

use of subjective categories that reflect relevant historical religious move-

ments may go a long way to assessing those social networks that shape reli-

gious identities, beliefs, and practices.

References


33/36

562 Alwin et al.

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. 1972.A Religious History of the American People. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Alwin, Duane F. 1986. Religion and Parental Child-Rearing Orientations: Evidence of aCatholic-Protestant Convergence.American Journal of Sociology 92:41240.

. 1994. Aging, Personality, and Social Change: The Stability of Individual Differences

across the Life Span. In Life-Span Development and Behavior, ed. David L. Featherman,Richard M. Lerner, and Marion Perlmutter, vol. 12, pp. 13585. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Ammerman, Nancy T. 1987. Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

. 1990. Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern BaptistConvention. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Beatty, Kathleen, and B. Oliver Walter. 1988. Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Politics.American Politics Quarterly 61:36274.

. 1989. A Group Theory of Religion and Politics: The Clergy as Group Leaders. WesternPolitical Quarterly 42:12958.

Boone, Kathleen C. 1989. The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Boyd, Heather Hartwig. 1999. Christianity and the Environment in the American Public.Jour-

nal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38:3644.Burke, Peter J. 2004. Identities and Social Structure. Social Psychology Quarterly 67:515.Davis, James A., and Tom W. Smith. 2003. General Social Surveys, 19722002: Cumulative Code-

book. Chicago: National Data for the Social Sciences at the National Opinion Research Center.DeMaris, Alfred. 2002. Explained Variance in Logistic Regression: A Monte Carlo Study of

Proposed Measures. Sociological Methods and Research 31:2774.Denton, Melinda Lundquist. 2004. Gender and Marital Decision Making: Negotiating Religious

Ideology and Practice. Social Forces 82:115180.Durkheim, Emile. (1912) 1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, trans. Karen E. Fields.

New York: Free Press.

Ellison, Christopher G., and Darren E. Sherkat. 1993. Obedience and Autonomy: Religion andParental Values Reconsidered.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:31329.

Finke, Roger, and Rodney Stark. 1992. The Churching of America, 17761900. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Gallagher, Sally K. 2004. Where Are the Antifeminist Evangelicals? Evangelical Identity, Sub-cultural Location, and Attitudes toward Feminism. Gender and Society 18:45172.

Gay, David A., and Christopher G. Ellison. 1993. Religious Subcultures and Political Tolerance:Do Denominations Still Matter?Review of Religious Research 34:31132.

Gay, David A., Christopher G. Ellison, and Daniel A. Powers. 1996. In Search of Denomina-tional Subcultures: Religious Affiliation and Pro-Family Issues Revisited.Review of Religious

Research 38:317.Gay, David A., John P. Lynxwiler, and Charles W. Peek. 2001. The Effects of Switching on

Denominational Subcultures.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40:51525.Gerth, Hans H., and C. Wright Mills, eds. 1958. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.

New York: Oxford University Press.Greeley, Andrew. 1993. Religion and Attitudes toward the Environment.Journal for the Scien-

tific Study of Religion 32:1928.Green, John C., James L. Guth, Corwin E. Smidt, and Lyman A. Kellstedt. 1996.Religion and the

Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Hadaway, C. Kirk, Penny Long Marler, and Mark Chaves. 1993. What the Polls Dont Show: A

Closer Look at U.S. Church Attendance.American Sociological Review 58:74152.Hadden, Jeffrey K. 1995. Religion and the Quest for Meaning and Order: Old Paradigms, New

Realities. Sociological Focus 28:83100.Harley, Brian, and Glenn Firebaugh. 1993. Americans Belief in an Afterlife: Trends over the

Past Two Decades.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:26978.Henry, Frank. 1982. Multivariate Analysis and Ordinal Data. American Sociological Review

47:299 307


34/36


Hewitt, John P. 1989.Dilemmas of the American Self. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Hout, Michael, and Claude Fischer. 2002. Americans with No Religion: Why Their Numbers

Are Growing.American Sociological Review 67:16590.Hout, Michael, and Andrew M. Greeley. 1987. The Center Doesnt Hold: Church Attendance in

the United States, 19401984.American Sociological Review 52:32545.

Hout, Michael, and Melissa J. Wilde. 2004. The Denominational Society of the USA: AReappraisal. In Patterns and Processes of Religious Change in Modern Industrial Societies:

Europe and United States, ed. Alasdair Crockett and Richard OLeary, pp. 5180. Lewiston,NY: E. Mellen Press.

Hunter, James Davison. 1983. American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quan-dary of Modernity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

. 1987.Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Hynson, Lawrence M., Jr. 1975. Religion, Attendance, and Belief in an Afterlife. Journal for

the Scientific Study of Religion 14:28587.Kellstedt, Lyman, and Corwin Smidt. 1991. Measuring Fundamentalism: An Analysis of Differ-

ent Operational Strategies.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30:25978.Leege, David C., and Lyman A. Kellstedt. 1993.Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American

Politics. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Lenski, Gerhard. 1961. The Religious Factor: A Sociological Study of Religions Impact on

Politics, Economics and Family Life. New York: Doubleday.Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Marsden, George M. 1980. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-

Century Evangelicalism, 18701925. New York: Oxford University Press.Nelsen, Hart M. 1981. Life without Afterlife: Toward Congruency of Belief across Genera-

tions.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 20:10918.Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1929. The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: Henry Holt

and Company.Park, Jerry Z., and Christian Smith. 2000. To Whom Much Has Been Given . . .: Religious

Capital and Community Voluntarism among Churchgoing Protestants.Journal for the Scien-tific Study of Religion 39:27286.

Roof, Wade Clark. 1989. Multiple Religious Switching: A Research Note. Journal for theScientific Study of Religion 28:53035.

. 1999. Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American Religion .Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Roof, Wade Clark, and William McKinney. 1987. American Mainline Religion: Its ChangingShape and Future. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Rosenberg, Morris. 1981. The Self-Concept: Social Product and Social Force. In Social Psy-chology: Sociological Perspectives, ed. Morris Rosenberg and Ralph H. Turner, pp. 593624.New York: Basic Books.

Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys.

New York: Academic Press.Schwadel, Philip. 2005. Education and Churchgoing Protestants Views of Highly Politicized

Christianity.Review of Religious Research 47:15061.Sherkat, Darren E. 2001. Tracking the Restructuring of American Religion: Religious Affiliation

and Patterns of Religious Mobility, 19731998. Social Forces 79:145993.Smith, Christian, with Michael Emerson, Sally Gallagher, Paul Kennedy, and David Sikkink.

1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Smith, Christian, and David Sikkink. 2003. Social Predictors of Retention in and Switching fromthe Religious Family of Origin: Another Look Using Religious Tradition Self-Identification.

Review of Religious Research 45:188206.Smith, Tom. 1987. Classifying Protestant Denominations. GSS Methodological Report no. 43.

Chicago: NORC.. 1990. Classifying Protestant Denominations. Review of Religious Research 31:

225 45


35/36

564 Alwin et al.

Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, andRobert D. Woodberry. 2000. The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the Stateof the Art. Social Forces 79:291318.

Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA:Benjamin/Cummings.

Troeltsch, Ernst. (1931) 1960. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, trans. Olive Wyon.New York: Harper.

Wells, L. Edward, and Sheldon Stryker. 1988. Stability and Change in Self over the LifeCourse. In Life-Span Development and Behavior, ed. Paul B. Baltes, David L. Featherman,and Richard M. Lerner, pp. 191229. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wilcox, Clyde, Ted G. Jelen, and David C. Leege. 1993. Religious Group Identifications:Toward a Cognitive Theory of Religious Mobilization. InRediscovering the Religious Factorin American Politics, ed. David Leege, Lyman Kellstedt, et al., pp. 7299. Armonk, NY: M. E.Sharpe.

Winship, Christopher, and Robert D. Mare. 1984. Regression Models with Ordinal Variables.American Sociological Review 49:51225.

Woodberry, Robert D., and Christian S. Smith. 1998. Fundamentalism et al.: Conservative

Protestants in America.Annual Review of Sociology 24:2556.Wuthnow, Robert. 1988a. Sociology of Religion. In Handbook of Sociology, ed. Neil J.

Smelser. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.. 1988b. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World War II.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


36/36

mesuring identities in survey

Documents