Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:58:26.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sexuality, Political Polarization, and Survey Reports of Religious Nonaffiliation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2018

Philip S. Brenner
Philip S. Brenner*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts Boston
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Philip S. Brenner, Department of Sociology and Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts Boston. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Survey estimates of the religiously unaffiliated in the United States—between 20% and 25%—make this group one of the largest “religious” categories in the country. Recent research argues that political polarization pushes political liberals and moderates to report no religious affiliation to distance themselves from religious conservatives. One key point of polarization behind this phenomenon is sexuality-focused politics, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) rights and discrimination. The current research uses a split-ballot survey experiment to investigate sexuality-focused political polarization as a cause of the reports of religious nonaffiliation. A sample of 2,238 respondents, stratified by sexual orientation (half LGBQ, half straight), completed a brief web survey starting with two randomly ordered series of questions on religion and sexuality. Findings suggest that sexuality-focused political polarization is not likely to be a primary cause of survey respondents’ claims of religious nonaffiliation.

Type
Article
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 153 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Justine Bulgar-Medina for her assistance with this study. The author is also grateful to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This research did not receive any specific grant funding.

References

REFERENCES

Baker, Joseph O., and Smith, Buster G.. 2009a. “The Nones: Social Characteristics of the Religiously Unaffiliated.” Social Forces 87(March):1251–1263.Google Scholar
Baker, Joseph O., and Smith, Buster G.. 2009b. “None Too Simple: Examining Issues of Religious Nonbelief and Nonbelonging in the United States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(4):719–733.Google Scholar
Belli, Robert F., Moore, Sean E., and VanHoewyk, John. 2006. “An Experimental Comparison of Question Forms Used to Reduce Vote Overreporting.” Electoral Studies 25(4):751–759.Google Scholar
Bishop, George F., Tuchfarber, Alfred J., and Oldendick, Robert W.. 1986. “Opinions on Fictitious Issues: The Pressure to Answer Survey Questions.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50(Summer):240–250.Google Scholar
Brenner, Philip S. 2011. “Exceptional Behavior or Exceptional Identity? Overreporting of Church Attendance in the US.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75(Spring):19–41.Google Scholar
Brenner, Philip S. 2014. “Testing the Veracity of Self-Reported Religious Behavior in the Muslim World.” Social Forces 92(March):1009–1037.Google Scholar
Brenner, Philip S., and DeLamater, John. 2016. “Measurement Directiveness as a Cause of Response Bias: Evidence from Two Survey Experiments.” Sociological Methods & Research 45(2):348–371.Google Scholar
Callegaro, Mario, Villar, Ana, Yeager, David, and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2014. “A Critical Review of Studies Investigating the Quality of Data Obtained with Online Panels Based on Probability and Nonprobability Samples.” In Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective, eds. Callegaro, Mario, Baker, Reg, Bethlehem, Jelke, Göritz, Anja, Krosnick, Jon A., and Lavrakas, Paul. New York: Wiley, 23–53.Google Scholar
DeBell, Matthew, and Figueroa, Lucila. 2011. “Results of a Survey Experiment on Frequency Reporting: Religious Service Attendance from the 2010 ANES Panel Recontact Survey.” Paper presented at the 66th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Kevin D., Johnson, Byron R., and Polson, Edward C.. 2007. “Recovering the Lost: Remeasuring U.S. Religious Affiliation.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(December):483–499.Google Scholar
Duff, Brian, Hanmer, Michael J., Park, Won-Ho, and White, Ismail K.. 2007. “Good Excuses: Understanding Who Votes with an Improved Turnout Question.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71(Spring):67–90.Google Scholar
Fowler, Floyd J. 1995. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gilljam, Mikael, and Granberg, Donald. 1993. “Should We Take Don't Know for an Answer?” Public Opinion Quarterly 57(Autumn):348–357.Google Scholar
Glenn, Norval D. 1987. “The Trend in ‘No Religion’ Respondents to US National Surveys, Late 1950s to Early 1980s.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51(Autumn):293–314.Google Scholar
Hadaway, C. Kirk, Long Marler, Penny, and Chaves, Mark. 1993. “What the Polls Don't Show: A Closer Look as US Church Attendance.” American Sociological Review 58 (December):741–752.Google Scholar
Hadaway, C. Kirk, Long Marler, Penny, and Chaves, Mark. 1998. “Overreporting Church Attendance in America: Evidence That Demands the Same Verdict.” American Sociological Review 63(February):122–130.Google Scholar
Hout, Michael, and Fischer, Claude S.. 2002. “Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations.” American Sociological Review 67(April):165–190.Google Scholar
Hout, Michael, and Fischer, Claude S.. 2014. “Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987-2012.” Sociological Science 1:423–447. doi: 10.15195/v1.a24.Google Scholar
Hout, Michael, and Smith, Tom W.. 2015. “Fewer Americans Affiliate with Organized Religions, Belief and Practice Unchanged: Key Findings from the 2014 General Social Survey.” http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Religion_2014.pdf.Google Scholar
Lim, Chaeyoon, Ann MacGregor, Carol, and Putnam, Robert D.. 2010. “Secular and Liminal: Discovering Heterogeneity among Religious Nones.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49(December):596–618.Google Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N., and Freese, Jeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2(2):109–138.Google Scholar
Newport, Frank. 2015. “Percentage of Christians in U.S. Drifting Down, but Still High.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/187955/percentage-christians-drifting-down-high.aspx.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2015. “U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious.” http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/11/201.11.03_RLS_II_full_report.pdf.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2016. “Where the Public Stands on Religious Liberty vs. Nondiscrimination.” http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2016/09/Religious-Liberty-full-for-web.pdf.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2017. “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.” http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf.Google Scholar
Presser, Stanley. 1990. “Can Changes in Context Reduce Vote Overreporting in Surveys?” Public Opinion Quarterly 54(Winter):586–593.Google Scholar
Presser, Stanley, and Stinson, Linda. 1998. “Data Collection Mode and Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reported Religious Attendance.” American Sociological Review 63(February):137–145.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., and Campbell, David E.. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Salancik, Gerald R., and Conway, Mary. 1975. “Attitude Inferences from Salient and Relevant Cognitive Content about Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(5):829–840.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Presser, Stanley. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sherkat, Darren E. 2016. “Sexuality and Religious Commitment Revisited: Exploring the Religious Commitments of Sexual Minorities, 1991–2014.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 55(4):756–769.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. B., Coeffey, T., Berra, K., Iaffaldano, R., Casey, K., and Haskell, W.L.. 1984. “Seven-day Activity and Self-Report Compared to a Direct Measure of Physical Activity.” American Journal of Epidemiology 120(6):818–824.Google Scholar
Toepoel, Vera, Das, Marcel, and Van Soest, Arthur. 2008. “Effects of Design in Web Surveys: Comparing Trained and Fresh Respondents.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5):985–1007.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, Rasinski, Kenneth A., Bradburn, Norman, and D'Andrade, Roy. 1989. “Carryover Effects in Attitude Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 53(Winter):495–524.Google Scholar
Van Der Zouwen, Johannes, and van Tilburg, Theo. 2001. “Reactivity in Panel Studies and its Consequences for Testing Causal Hypotheses.” Sociological Methods & Research 30(1):35–56.Google Scholar
Vargas, Nicholas. 2012. “Retrospective Accounts of Religious Disaffiliation in the United States: Stressors, Skepticism, and Political Factors.” Sociology of Religion 73(2):200–223.Google Scholar
Williams, Ellen, Klesges, Robert C., Hanson, Cindy L., and Eck, Linda. 1989. “A Prospective Study of the Reliability and Convergent Validity of Three Physical Activity Measures in a Field Research Trial.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 42(12):1161–1170.Google Scholar