political orientation and church attendance

Church Attendance and Political Orientation

By: Keenan M. Afram

2

Section 1: Introduction

This is a study of the relationship between church attendance of people in the United States

and their political orientation (e.g. conservative, liberal, and moderate). The benefits of this

study, and why the field of Political Science needs this contribution, can be found in Section 2.

According to a review of the current literature, found in Section 3 and 4, there is a general

consensus that individuals who attend church more regularly are more conservative and vice

versa. The aim of this study is to explore the extent that church attendance correlates with

political orientation.

To elucidate this relationship, three hypotheses will be tested:

H1: Those who regularly attend church will generally self-identify as conservative.

H2: Those who sometimes attend church will have no political preference.

H3: Those who rarely attend church will generally self-identity as liberal.

In section 5, using data from the National Election Studies, these hypotheses will be explored

through cross-tabulation and bivariate regression analysis. Following this, in Section 6, insight

and conclusions about our study will be summarized. And finally, Section 7 contains the

methodological appendix, including details on data gathering and analysis.

Section 2: Why Political Science Needs this Contribution

Political Science is the study of governments, public policies and political processes,

systems, and political behavior. Our study elucidates a key area of Political Science: political

behavior. If correlations can be drawn between church attendance and political orientation, an

important demographic of the United States can be better understood; this understanding can

3

elucidate the nature of the church attendance voting bloc, which helps to understand the overall

political climate and nature of the American political framework.

This study serves as a starting point for other studies - by determining what the

relationship is between church attendance and political orientation, further studies can explore

why the relationship is the way it is. This may lead to further studies that examine the

consequences of this relationship, strategies for mobilization, etc. The field of Political Science

needs this study’s contribution to provide insight into the American political framework and to

provide a catalyst and foundation for future studies.

Section 3: Literature Review

Michael J. Perry, in his essay titled Religion in Politics, lays the foundation for our study

by enumerating that, “an overwhelming 70% of American adults are members of a church”

(Perry 3). Perry, however, does not specify which God or religion is being discussed, nor which

church is being attended. Perry’s contribution is nonetheless significant because it reveals, “the

role of religion is anything but marginal to American politics” (Perry 3). According to Perry,

religion and church attendance do indeed play a role in American politics; if that is the case,

since 70% of Americans belong to a church, a large majority, the exploration of the effects of

church attendance in American politics is vital to explore. This imperative forms the basis of our

study: what effect, if any, does church attendance on American politics?

Before the question of what effect church attendance has on American politics can be

asked, Perry’s claim that church attendance has any effect at all must be confirmed and verified.

Kenneth D. Wald, Dennis E. Owen, and Samuel S. Hill, authors of Churches as Political

Centers, substantiate Perry’s claim by exploring the ways in which churches can act as a political

4

nexus. According to the authors, churches function as political communities capable of swaying

and impressing political opinions upon those who are attending. The reason is due to the nature

of churches – they are a community of sorts built on a consensus of theology and beliefs (Wald,

Owen, and Hill 533). This community of consensus creates an amiable and collusive

environment to share and express ideas; in addition, within the church community, there is a

deferential hierarchy. Attendees listen to the one preaching and generally are not able to

communicate or interact - this prevents discussion or exploration of beliefs, resulting in the

attendees submitting to the preacher’s words. Because of the lack of discussion, the collusive

environment, and the community of consensus, the church environment maximizes behavioral

contagion and is ideal for dissemination of common views and theologies (Wald, Owen, and Hill

540). Perry, as well as Wald, Owen, and Hill, concur that church communities and preachers

frequently dabble into political matters. Thus, churches do indeed act as political communities by

directly and noticeably affecting the attendees’ political outlook, societal attitudes, and other

such variables that affect political orientation.

So far, the literature review has concluded that 70% of Americans attend some kind of

church, and that church communities are capable of noticeably impacting political behavior.

What, then, are the results of these impactful institutions? For that answer, we look to Geoffrey

Layman’s essay titled Religion and Political Behavior in the United States. In his essay, Layman

documents and explores the rise of a religious fundamentalism and orthodoxy within the United

States – this fundamentalism entails frequent church attendance and adherence to

orthodox/fundamentalist beliefs (Layman 300). According to Layman, this rise in

fundamentalism within the United States has created a new religious cleavage that emphasizes

theology and beliefs in determining political behavior and choices. Using data from the

5

American National Election Studies from 1980 to 1994, Layman tests his hypothesis that the rise

of doctrinal orthodoxy, religious commitment, and increased church attendance, has produced a

growing cleavage of conservative church goers in the United States.

Taken collectively, the various authors make three key observations. The first

observation, Perry’s main contribution, is the sheer number of people, 70%, that have indicated

they attend a church – by making this point, the topic of religion and politics potentially becomes

incredibly relevant as it permeates the entire American society. Perry’s observation is confirmed

by Wald et al., and the authors introduce a second key point: churches function as political

committees. Due to the collusive environment of theology, churches are capable of impressing

theological views on attendees – however, as Perry and Wald et al. have noted, the preachers in

these church communities often introduce politics. Thus, churches are a prime environment for

introducing and disseminating political values. Layman consolidates and coalesces the two

previous points and introduces us to our third point, the effect of these political centers

(churches) on over 70% of the American population. According to Layman, there is a rise in

orthodoxy that has produced a strong conservative movement within the United States. Those

who attend church and practice this orthodox faith identify strongly with conservative political

orientation.

What exactly is a conservative political orientation? The sheer volume of ideas,

institutions, beliefs, philosophies, and histories that fall under the sphere of the American

conservative movement is too vast to explore individually; instead, a broader, holistic approach

to identifying political conservative orientation will be taken. Accordingly, this study looks at

self-identification as the primary means of discerning political orientation because of the

efficiency it can provide salient information.

6

The last article, Closing the God Gap, by Mark Tooley, explores the voting breakdown in

the 2008 presidential election between John McCain and Barack Obama; this article provides a

real world example of this study’s hypotheses in action. This article will be used extensively in

the concluding section, found in Section 6.

Section 4: Problems with Existing Literature

While all three authors deal with different facets of the original topic, they each

contribute to an overall understanding: first, that many believe in God, second that churches act

as political centers, and third, that the political philosophy taught in these political centers is

trending towards conservatism. However, there are some definite holes and problems with this

existing literature.

Collectively, all of the authors focus generally on Christian denominations; while

Christianity is the largest sect in the United States, there could be important variations between

church attendance and political orientation among other non-mainstream religions, such as

Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. However, because the literature does not specify the particular

denomination, religion, or church being attended, our study must necessarily refrain from

distinguishing between denominations as well.

In addition, much of the existing literature uses statistical data from 1980 to 1994 and

thus may not properly reflect the current demographics of the United States. However, according

to Layman, the new religious cleavage began to take shape during those years, and thus the

statistics will provide salient and relevant information (Layman 302). Our study utilizes data

from 1948 to 2004 presidential election to avoid this pratfall.

7

Lastly, Tooley’s article, Closing the God Gap, defines “religiously observant” as

attending church; there are indeed other facets to being religiously observant other than attending

church, but they are difficult to track, categorize, and analyze. Thus, this study utilizes the

criterion as Tooley does.

Section 5: Data and Analysis

Section 5.1: Hypothesis 1

Our first hypothesis (H1) is as follows: Those who regularly attend church will generally

self-identify as conservative. Based on the literature reviewed, a confirmation of this hypothesis

would be logical. To test this hypothesis, this study utilizes data provided by the National

Election Studies from 1948 to 2004 will be utilized; specifically, the variables VCF0804 (which

this study designates political Orientation) andVCF0130 (which this study designates Church

Attendance).

Figure 1: Regular Attendance and Political Orientation Crosstabulation

Regularly Attend * Orientation recoded Crosstabulation

Count Orientation recoded

Total Liberal Moderate Conservative

Regularly Attend 1577 2823 4617 9017

Figure 1 is a crosstabulation summary of the number of people who regularly attend church and

identify as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The large percentage of conservative respondents

8

is readily apparent; to explore this relationship and test H1, the data was run through a linear

regression analysis. The results are found in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 2: Regularly Attend and Political Orientation Graphic Representation with Linear

Line

Figure 3: Regularly Attend and Political Orientation Linear Regression Values

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

B Std. Error

1 (Constant) 2.035 .008

Attendance

Regularly DUMMY

.652 .011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Liberal Moderate Conservative

Orientation recoded

Regularly Attend

Regularly Attend

Linear (RegularlyAttend)

9

Figure 4: Interpretation of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients

(Stockburger)

Correlation Negative Positive

None -0.09 to 0.0 0.0 to 0.09

Small -0.3 to -0.1 0.1 to 0.3

Medium -0.5 to -0.3 0.3 to 0.5

Strong -1.0 to -0.5 0.5 to 1.0

Figures 2 and 3 reveal a strong correlation between regularly attending church and self-

identifying as conservative. Confirming this, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

Coefficient found through the regression analysis was .652 (Figure 3). Based on the

interpretation chart (Figure 4), this represents a strong correlation.

Thus, H1 (Those who regularly attend church will generally self-identify as conservative)

is a definitively confirmed hypothesis with a strong Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

Coefficient of .652 – this result was expected based on the extensive literature on the rise of the

religious conservative cleavage documented Geoffrey Layman’s essay, Religion and Political

Behavior in the United States.


Our second hypothesis (H2) is as follows: Those who sometimes attend church will have

no political preference. Based on the literature reviewed, the outcome of this hypothesis is

unknown; we know there is a strong correlation between regularly attending and conservatism,

but the effects of sometimes attending cannot easily be garnered from the literature or previous

10

test. To test this hypothesis, this study utilizes data provided by the National Election Studies

from 1948 to 2004 will be utilized; specifically, the variables VCF0804 (which this study

designates political Orientation) andVCF0130 (which this study designates Church Attendance).

Figure 5: Sometimes Attend and Political Orientation Crosstabulation

Attendance Sometimes * Orientation recoded Crosstabulation



Attendance Sometimes 816 1135 1207 3158

Figure 5 is a crosstabulation summary of the number of people who sometimes attend church and

identify as liberal, moderate, or conservative. There is not a very significant amount of

differentiation from the mean, 1052.66, for each category. The number of liberals only deviates

from the mean by 236.66; moderates by 82.34; and conservatives by 154.34. The deviations are

generally similar, thus potentially reveal an insignificant correlation between sometimes

attending church and political orientation. To explore this relationship and test H1, the data was

run through a linear regression analysis. The results are found in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Figure 6: Sometimes Attend and Political Orientation Graphic Representation with Linear

Line

11

Figure 7: Sometimes Attend and Political Orientation Linear Regression Values

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

B Std. Error

1 (Constant) 2.035 .008

Attendance

Sometimes

DUMMY

.089 .011


(Stockburger)


None -0.09 to 0.0 0.0 to 0.09

0100200300400500600700800900

100011001200


Orientation recoded

Sometimes Attend

Sometimes Attend

Linear (SometimesAttend)

12

Small -0.3 to -0.1 0.1 to 0.3

Medium -0.5 to -0.3 0.3 to 0.5

Strong -1.0 to -0.5 0.5 to 1.0

Figure 6 and 7 reveal a very weak or non-existent correlation between sometimes attending

church and a particular political orientation. Confirming this, the Pearson Product-Moment

Correlation Coefficient found through the regression analysis was .089 (Figure 7). Based on the

interpretation chart (Figure 8), this represents a nonexistent or small correlation.

Thus, H2 (Those who sometimes attend church will have no political preference) is a

definitively confirmed hypothesis with a non-existent or small Pearson Product-Moment

Correlation Coefficient of .089 – this result was neither expected nor unexpected based on the

literature of the topic, as no literature extensively explored the political orientation of those who

sometimes attend church.


Our third hypothesis (H3) is as follows: H3: Those who rarely attend church will

generally self-identity as liberal. Based on the literature reviewed and the results of H1, this

hypothesis will likely be confirmed; because the correlation between regularly attending and

conservatism is very high, the opposite is likely true. To test this hypothesis, this study utilizes

data provided by the National Election Studies from 1948 to 2004 will be utilized; specifically,

the variables VCF0804 (which this study designates political Orientation) andVCF0130 (which

this study designates Church Attendance).


13

Rarely Attend * Orientation Crosstabulation



Rarely Attend 3147 3729 3511 10387

Figure 9 is a crosstabulation summary of the number of people who rarely attend church and

identify as liberal, moderate, or conservative. There is not a very significant amount of

differentiation from the mean, 3462.33, for each category. The number of liberals only deviates

from the mean by -315.33; moderates by +266.67; and conservatives by +48.67. The deviations

between liberal and moderate are very similar – however, conservatives are closest to the mean.

This data seems to suggest there is no real correlation between rarely attending church and

identifying as liberal, seemingly disproving H3.To explore this relationship and test H1, the data

was run through a linear regression analysis. The results are found in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Figure 10: Rarely Attend and Political Orientation Graphic Representation with Linear

Line

14


Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

B Std. Error

(Constant) 2.035 .008

Attendance Rarely

DUMMY

.115 .011


(Stockburger)


None -0.09 to 0.0 0.0 to 0.09

Small -0.3 to -0.1 0.1 to 0.3

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500


Political Orientation

Rarely Attend

Rarely Attend

Linear (Rarely Attend)

15

Medium -0.5 to -0.3 0.3 to 0.5

Strong -1.0 to -0.5 0.5 to 1.0

Figure 10 and 11 reveal a very weak correlation between rarely attending church and liberal

political orientation, as H3 predicted. Instead, rarely attending church is more identified with

being of moderate and conservative political orientation, but this correlation is so weak as to be

non-significant. Confirming this, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient found

through the regression analysis was .115 (Figure 11). Based on the interpretation chart (Figure

12), this represents a nonexistent or small correlation.

Thus, H3 (Those who rarely attend church will generally self-identity as liberal) has been

disproved– there is a nonexistent or small Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient of

.115 between rarely attending church and identifying as liberal. In order to have confirmed this

hypothesis, the correlation coefficient should have been a negative coefficient between -1.0 to -

0.5. This result was unexpected based on the literature of the topic; the literature extensively

confirmed H1, thus potentially revealing the behavior of the opposite demographic in H3 – this

was certainly not the case.

Section 5.4: Results and Additional Data

To summarize, based on the above data and the correlation coefficients:

H1 and H2 are confirmed.

H3 is disproved.

16

However, the correlation values fail to take into account the overall number of liberals,

moderates, and conservatives, found in Figure 13 below

Figure 13: Total Number of Respondents who Identified as Liberal, Moderate, or

Conservative.

Attendance recoded

Total Rarely Sometimes Regularly

Orientation

recoded

Liberal 3147

(56.8%)

816

(14.7%)

1577

(28.5%)

5540

Moderate 3729

(48.5%)

1135

(14.8%)

2823

(36.7%)

7687

Conservative 3511

(37.6%)

1207

(12.9%)

4617

(49.5%)

9335

Total 10387 3158 9017 22562

As Figure 13 shows us, conservative respondents outnumber liberal respondents almost 2

to 1; it would make sense, then, that more moderates and conservatives rarely attend church

simply because there are more moderates and conservatives than there are liberals. Thus, the

results of the data above are technically true; if you examine all of the Americans that

participated in this survey, you would find that there was little correlation between sometimes

attending church and rarely attending church and identifying as liberal or moderate. And, since

conservatives were the largest group within the survey, the respondents were spread within the

17

various attendance categories. This, however, still does not reveal the true nature of church

attendance and political orientation, largely because of the skewed and disproportionate number

of people that identify as conservative.

Figure 14: A Graphical Representation of the Attendance and Orientation as a Percentage

of the Total Number

To successfully determine the correlation between liberalism and church attendance, the

number of respondents would have to be even distributed between liberals, moderates, and

conservatives; to do that, each respondent was taken as a percentage of the whole, rather than as

an absolute number (since there are disproportionately more moderates and conservatives than

liberals). Figure 14 reveals a more accurate breakdown that compares the percentage of liberals,

moderates, and conservatives, that rarely attend, sometimes attend, and regularly attend church.

We cannot, however, perform a regression analysis, as the numbers are not absolute, nor do they

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Rarely Attend

Sometimes Attend

Regularly Attend

18

properly reflect the data. Nonetheless, powerful observations can be gleaned that can be used to

explore our hypotheses more accurately than if we used absolute data.

H1: Those who regularly attend church will generally self-identify as conservative.

Respondents who regularly attend church:

Identify as Conservative 49.5% of the time

Identify as Moderate 36.7% of the time

Identify as Liberal 28.5% of the time.

By looking at the relative percentages, we can see those who attend church regularly generally

identify as conservative (49.5% of the time) rather than moderate (36.7%) or liberal (28%).

H1 is thus definitively confirmed.

H2: Those who sometimes attend church will have no political preference.

Respondents who sometimes attend church:

Identify as Conservative 12.9% of the time.

Identify as Moderate 14.8% of the time.


By looking at the relative percentages, we can see there is very little differentiation between

people who sometimes attend church and their political orientation. Generally, the same amount

19

of conservatives, moderates, and liberals attend church sometimes. Thus, there is no political

preference for those who sometimes attend church.

H2 is thus definitively confirmed.

H3: Those who rarely attend church will generally self-identity as liberal.

Respondents who rarely attend church:

Identify as Conservative 37.6% of the time

Identify as Moderate 48.5% of the time.


By looking at the relative percentages, we can see there is a significant differentiation between

people who rarely attend church and their political orientation. Those who rarely attend church

are far more likely to identify as liberal and moderate. Thus, we cannot say that those who rarely

attend church will generally identify as liberal, since those who identified as moderate was a high

percentage (48.5%), we can, however, conclude the null hypothesis of H1, meaning, those who

rarely attend church will generally not identify as conservative.

H3 is thus partially confirmed.

Section 7: Methodological Appendix

Section 7.1: Data and Analyses

20

The data in this study was provided by the National Election Studies from 1948 to 2004;

the two main variables analyzed are variable “VCF0804” (which this study designates Political

Orientation) and variable “VCF0130” (which this study designates Church Attendance).

In order to analyze each level of church attendance separate, we separated VCF0130,

Church Attendance, into 3 compressed categories: sometimes, rarely, and regularly. This

matches the spirit of the original categories, which are as follows:

1. Every Week

2. Almost every week

3. Once or twice a month

4. A few times a year

5. Never

The regularly category is compromised of #1 and #2.

The sometimes category is compromised of #3.

The rarely category is compromised of #4 and #5.

In order to properly analyze effect of church attendance on political orientation, we

analyzed VCF0804, the compressed version of the liberal-conservative scale found in VCF0803,

“Liberal-Conservative Scale.” This allowed us to approach the correlation in a holistic manner

that corresponded to the collapsed version of the church attendance variable.

The correlations in our study were acquired by utilizing linear regression analysis and

finding a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient using SPSS.

21

The graphical representations and linear lines were found using Microsoft Excel’s

graphing functions.

Section 7.2: Figures and Table

Figure 1: Regular Attendance and Political Orientation Crosstabulation

Regularly Attend * Orientation recoded Crosstabulation



Regularly Attend 1577 2823 4617 9017

Figure 2: Regularly Attend and Political Orientation Graphic Representation with Linear

Line

Figure 3: Regularly Attend and Political Orientation Linear Regression Values

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000


Orientation recoded

Regularly Attend

Regularly Attend

Linear (RegularlyAttend)

22

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

B Std. Error

1 (Constant) 2.035 .008

Attendance

Regularly DUMMY

.652 .011


(Stockburger)


None -0.09 to 0.0 0.0 to 0.09

Small -0.3 to -0.1 0.1 to 0.3

Medium -0.5 to -0.3 0.3 to 0.5

Strong -1.0 to -0.5 0.5 to 1.0


Attendance Sometimes * Orientation recoded Crosstabulation



Attendance Sometimes 816 1135 1207 3158

23

Figure 6: Sometimes Attend and Political Orientation Graphic Representation with Linear

Line


Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

B Std. Error

1 (Constant) 2.035 .008

Attendance

Sometimes

DUMMY

.089 .011


(Stockburger)

0100200300400500600700800900

100011001200


Orientation recoded

Sometimes Attend

Sometimes Attend

Linear (SometimesAttend)

24


None -0.09 to 0.0 0.0 to 0.09

Small -0.3 to -0.1 0.1 to 0.3

Medium -0.5 to -0.3 0.3 to 0.5

Strong -1.0 to -0.5 0.5 to 1.0


Rarely Attend * Orientation Crosstabulation



Rarely Attend 3147 3729 3511 10387

Figure 10: Rarely Attend and Political Orientation Graphic Representation with Linear

Line

25


Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

B Std. Error

(Constant) 2.035 .008

Attendance Rarely

DUMMY

.115 .011


(Stockburger)


None -0.09 to 0.0 0.0 to 0.09

Small -0.3 to -0.1 0.1 to 0.3

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500


Political Orientation

Rarely Attend

Rarely Attend

Linear (Rarely Attend)

26

Medium -0.5 to -0.3 0.3 to 0.5

Strong -1.0 to -0.5 0.5 to 1.0

Figure 13: Total Number of Respondents who Identified as Liberal, Moderate, or

Conservative.

Attendance recoded

Total Rarely Sometimes Regularly

Orientation

recoded

Liberal 3147

(56.8%)

816

(14.7%)

1577

(28.5%)

5540

Moderate 3729

(48.5%)

1135

(14.8%)

2823

(36.7%)

7687

Conservative 3511

(37.6%)

1207

(12.9%)

4617

(49.5%)

9335

Total 10387 3158 9017 22562

Figure 14: A Graphical Representation of the Attendance and Orientation as a Percentage

of the Total Number

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Rarely Attend

Sometimes Attend

Regularly Attend

28

References

Layman, Geoffrey C. Religion and Political Behavior in the United States: The Impact of

Beliefs, Affiliations, and Commitment From 1980 to 1994. The Public Opinion Quarterly.

Vol. 61 No. 2. American Association for Public Opinion Research. pp288 – 316. Web.

Perry, Michael J. Religion in Politics. U.C. Davis L. Rev. 729. 1995-1996. Web.

Stockburger, David. Correlation. Missouri State Education. Web.11 May. 2012.

Tooley, Mark D. "Closing the God Gap; Did Obama's religious outreach pay off?" The Weekly

Standard 7 Nov. 2008. Academic OneFile. Web. 26 Apr. 2012

Wald, Kenneth, D. Dennis E Owen, and Samuel S Hill Jr. Churches as Political Communities.

The American Political Science Review. Vol 82. No. 2. American Political Science

Association 1988. pp 531-548.Web.

political orientation and church attendance

Data & Analytics