Improving Religious Identification Methods: Who's Misbehavin'?

1. Who's Misbehavin'?: Improving the Identification Method of the Affiliated Non-Religious Christopher Born The Catholic University of America Christine Brickman Bhutta The Catholic University of America Center for the Economic Study of Religion (GMU)

2. Motivating the Project • Current research on religious adherents fails in one of two respects: (1) Does not distinguish marginal from active members (2) When distinctions are drawn, uniform criteria across denominations (reltrad) are applied • Missteps lead to: (1) Overlooking relative importance different traditions place on specific beliefs and behaviors (2) Misclassification of respondents (3) “Watering down” of findings both within and across denominations • Examples

3. New Classification Scheme Goals • Recognize multiple dimensions of religious commitment • Evaluate individuals according to the standards of their specific religious traditions

4. Goal #1Recognize multiple dimensions of religiosity • Belonging (self-identified, RELTRAD) • Behavior (church attendance) • Belief (view on bible) Himmelfarb 1975, Kellstedt 1993

5. Goal #2 Be specific to each religious tradition • Consult authoritative church teachings, foundational church documents, and relevant theology • When above is limited, consider what members of a given tradition identify as core components of their religious identity (Mockabee et al 2001)

6. New Classification Scheme – Catholics • Source: • Attendance: First Precept of the Church • Bible: Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) • Requirements for active status: • Attendance: 2 to 3 times per month or more • Bible: Cannot identify bible as book of fables • Results: • Active – 40 percent • Marginal – 60 percent

8. New Classification Scheme: Evangelical Protestants • Source: • Bible: Statement of Faith from the National Association of Evangelicals and evangelical Protestant respondents • Attendance: Importance of baptism and collective worship and importance placed on attendance by evangelical Protestants themselves (Mockabee et al 2001) • Requirements for active status: • Bible: Cannot identify bible as book of fables • Attendance: 2 to 3 times per month or more • Results: • Active – 57 percent • Marginal – 43 percent

9. New Classification Scheme: Mainline Protestants • Source: • Bible: UMC, ELCA, PCUSA overlapping portions of statement of faith and mainline Protestant respondents • 61 percent of all mainline Protestants fall into above denominations • Attendance: Importance of baptism, Eucharist, and collective worship; and attitudes toward attendance by mainline Protestants (Mockabee et al 2001) • Requirements for active status: • Bible: Cannot identify bible as book of fables • Attendance: Once per month • Results: • Active – 47 percent • Marginal – 53 percent

10. Group Compositions

11. Preliminary Analysis • Data: GSS (1988, 1998, 2008) • Limitations exist, but wanted large enough sample • Use RELTRAD to break out denominations (Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant) • Explore trends over time: arepeople moving to the margins of the church? • Religious commitment and political affiliation

12. Percentage of Marginal Members in Each Religious Tradition over Time

13. Political Affiliations Political Party ID by Religious Tradition: Active and Marginal Political Party ID by Religious Tradition: Active only

14. Discussion • Challenges of the data • Attendance issues (over-reporting) • Other findings in the data Feedback • We welcome any comments about sources, methodology, criteria, etc. • Any other data sources? • Other items to examine on GSS?