Religious Affiliation, Attendance, and Support for ...

Religious Affiliation, Attendance, and Support for "Pro-Family" Issues in the United States* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University M I C H A E L H U G H E S, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University B R A D L E Y R. HERTEL,

Denominational and attendance differences in attitudes toward a broad range of family issues are examined using NORC data for whites (N of about 11,000) for 11 polls conducted between 1972 and 1984. Findings are presented with and without controls for sex, age, income, education, and region. Protestant fundamentalists along with Baptists and Catholics were most conservative; Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians were moderates; and Episcopalians, Jezus, and nones veere most liberal. Approximate rank orders of the nine groups were consistent across family issues; however, no group was found to be consistently conservative, as the level of conservatism varied with the content of the issues. Attendance was found to be positively related to conservatism for all eight religious bodies (and unrelated for nones) with the degree of relationship varying directly with the degree of relative conservatism of the denominations.

This paper is an investigation of the relationship of denominational identification to attitudes about family life and sexuality. Traditional "profamily" values and their link to conservative Protestantism have received a great deal of attention in recent years in the popular press and in the sociological literature,' but controversy remains over how and to what degree denominational affiliation and religiosity are related to social conservatism in attitudes and behavior. *Revised version of a paper presented at the 1985 meetings of the Southern Sociological Society. We thank Carolyn J. Kroehler, Anthony Oberschall, and two anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier draft. Address correspondence to the authors, Department of Sociology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

© 1987 The University of North Carolina Press

858

Downloaded from http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/ at Virginia Tech on April 12, 2016

Abstract

Religion and Family Issues / 859 DENOMINATIONALISM


The contemporary sociological understanding of differences among Christian denominations in religious belief has been heavily influenced by Glock and Stark's (1965) analysis of what they called the "New Denominationalism." Glock and Stark presented evidence of appreciable interdenominational variation in strength of conviction on basic Christian doctrines, for example, belief in the existence of God and in the divinity of Christ. They proposed that American Christian bodies could be classified into a four-category continuum: (1) liberals (Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and Methodists); (2) moderates (Presbyterians and Disciples of Christ); (3) conservatives (American Lutherans and American Baptists); and (4) fundamentalists (Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and sects). Denominationalism in American society is not confined to Christian bodies but seems to be a more general feature of American religious life. Harrison and Lazerwitz show that in spite of the fact that American Jews are fairly homogeneous with respect to socioeconomic and cultural factors, there are "substantial differences between the denominational groups in the ethno-religious behavior and orientations of their affiliates" (1982, p. 369). Harrison and Lazerwitz also argue that the relationship of denominationalism and ethnic loyalty among Jews is analogous to the historical relationship of denominationalism and loyalty to different styles of religious behavior among Protestants. While the existence and nature of denominationalism with regard to religious belief are fairly well understood, there is less agreement on whether it is relevant to other issues. Swatos (1981), for example, sees a decline in denominationalism and power of denominations at the local level as well as a rise in nondenominational churches. Consistent with such a view is the fact that attempts to find denominational differences in political and economic behavior have been generally unsuccessful (Rojek 1973; Schuman 1971; Winter 1974; for a review and critique of such studies see Bouma 1973). Harrison and Lazerwitz (1982) speculate that the Jack of consistent evidence supporting the existence of denominationalism in studies of Protestants may be due to the fact that researchers have concentrated more on political and economic issues than on other topics such as leisure time and family concerns. Marty (1970) and Carroll, Johnson, and Marty (1979) note that it is just this latter set of issues which is associated with the private dimension of personal morality and individual salvation which has traditionally divided Protestants.

860 / Social Forces Volume 65:3, March 1987 DENOMINATIONALISM AND FAMILY VALDES


Social conservatism embodies traditional attitudes, values, and beliefs about social relations and authority, and includes traditionalism in regard to family, sex roles, reproduction, sexuality, and conformity to conventional behavior. There is controversy over whether fundamentalism is consistently related to such social conservatism. For example, Peek and Brown (1980), in an analysis of General Social Survey data, argue that membership in fundamentalist denominations is not associated with opposition to the full participation of women in politics. 2 Stacey and Shupe (1982) analyzed data from white homeowners in the Dallas–Fort Worth area and concluded that viewers and listeners to conservative religious programs are attracted to their religious messages and are much less concerned with conservative social issues. Hirschi and Stark (1969) found that neither belief in the existence of supernatural sanctions nor religious participation was related to delinquency. Other studies suggest that data on attitudes concerning social conservatism for different religious groups may not reflect denominationalism. McIntosh and Alston (1977), for example, report some convergence of Protestants and Catholics in level of approval of abortion, and Mclntosh, Alston, and Alston (1979) show that frequent attendance of religious services in liberal and conservative religious bodies alike is associated with opposition to abortion. Reporting findings of Gallup and Poling (1980), Hadden (1983) indicates that the beliefs and values—including those pertaining to the family—of the "unchurched" are similar to those of the "churched." Evidence can be cited, however, which supports the hypothesis that denominationalism is associated with conservatism in values about family, sex roles, reproduction, and sexuality. In his study of undergraduate students at evangelical and secular colleges, Hunter (1984) found marked religious differences on three sex-related issues: ERA, abortion, and homosexuals teaching in public schools. Evangelical students espoused conservative "pro-family" values commonly expressed by leaders of the evangelical movement. Protestant fundamentalism's pro-family stance also is in evidence in telen's (1984) study of attitudes toward abortion. Using 1977 NORC data, Jelen found that Catholic identity, high education, and frequent church attendance are associated with "pro-life" opposition to abortion white Protestant fundamentalist identity, low education, and infrequent attendance are associated with opposition to abortion on grounds of sexual immorality. Jelen interprets the attendance finding as evidence that frequent attenders are more inclined to be intrinsically religious and, consequently, to oppose abortion on the basis of the abstract principie of right to life whereas infrequent attenders are more

Religion and Family Issues / 861

inclined to be extrinsically religious and thus inclined to base their opposition on the value of sexual morality. ATTENDANCE AND FAMILY VALUES


telen's (1984) findings raise the question, does opposition to abortion increase with attendance of liberal and fundamentalist churches alike? If the relationship parallels that between party affiliation and attendance reported by Johnson (1962), we would expect to find that attendance of liberal denominations reinforces liberal, pro-abortion values while attendance of conservative denominations reinforces opposition to abortion. In addressing this question, Mclntosh, Alston, and Alston (1979, p. 195) found denominational differences in the anticipated direction but also found attendance to have effects that in some cases ran counter to those of denomination, "Individuals who rank high on attendance tend to be members of moral communities reflecting anti-abortion positions, regardless of the degree of liberal ideologies associated with certain church or denominational preferences" and therefore tend to oppose abortion. The authors elaborate on this point by noting that "religious participation can have effects that are in the opposite direction of the effects of membership preference" (Mclntosh, Alston, and Alston 1979, p. 196); for example, even if they are members of liberal denominations, frequent attenders tend to be opposed to abortion. Gorsuch and Aleshire (1974) lend indirect support to Mclntosh, Alston, and Alston's conclusion that frequent attendance is associated with intrinsic religiosity and distinctive values. Gorsuch and Aleshire found frequent attenders and non-attenders to be lower on anti-Semitism than nominal attenders and suggest that this relationship may be due to differences in levels of intrinsic religiosity among these attendance groups. Studies of religion and deviance suggest another possibility. Researchers investigating Hirschi and Stark's (1969, p. 212) conclusion that "the church is irrelevant to delinquency" have shown that attendance at religious services is negatively related to the commission of victimless delinquent acts (Albrecht, Chadwick, and Alcorn 1977; Burkett and White 1974). The explanation presented by Burkett and White, and by Albrecht, Chadwick, and Alcorn, and systematically developed by Tittle and Welch (1983) is that since there is less societal consensus on the moral status of victimless than of victim crimes, there is less secular institutional support for their condemnation. For issues on which societal consensus is low, there is greater potential for religion to account for differences in attitudes. 3 In studies of religion and drug use among adolescents, researchers have found that the negative effect of religious attendance on alcohol use is stronger for those affiliated with proscriptive religions (which tend to be

862 / Social Forces Volume 65:3, March 1987

The Research Problem

As shown above, there are arguments and evidence both for and against the proposition that denominational identification is associated with social attitudes concerning family values and sexuality. There is also evidence supporting three different hypotheses concerning how attendance should be related to such attitudes. HYPOTHESIS I: DENOMINATIONALISM

Drawing on Glock and Stark's (1965) model, Carroll, Johnson, and Marty (1979), and Hargrove's (1983) discussion of official positions on family issues taken in recent years by various Protestant denominations, we expect to find the Christian groups 4 to rank, from liberal to conservative on family values, as follows: Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist and Catholic, and Protestant fundamentalists. s We expect to find Jews and nones to be generally liberal on the full range of family issues. HYPOTHESIS II: ATTENDANCE

The literature on attendance leads to two hypotheses that are incompatible with each other: (1) High levels of attendance within any denomination may be associated with conservative attitudes since all Christian denominations as well as Judaism support the sanctity of the family and the value of family life. (2) Alternatively, the overall value structure of each denomi-


more fundamentalist) than it is among those affiliated with prescriptive religions (which tend to be more liberal) (see Hadaway, Elifson, and Petersen 1984; Nelsen and Rooney 1982). For the less fundamentalist religions, the issue of alcohol use is less salient and, therefore, less affected by religiosity. While issues pertaining to the family are clearly important to a broad cross-section of the U.S. population, the amount of controversy over abortion, pornography, women's rights, and sexual expression testifies to a lack of consensus favoring the conservative position on the specific issues that fundamentalists call "family." Furthermore, there is a great deal of visibility of the so-called family issues in the fundamentalist agenda which does not exist in the liberal denominations. It is, therefore, possible that attendance has a pronounced effect on pro-family attitudes among those in the more fundamentalist denominations and has less or no particular effect on those affiliated with more liberal denominations—a result that would parallel findings on religiosity, deviance, and drugs.


Data and Methods SAMPLE

The data come from the 11 General Social Surveys completed between 1972 and 1984 (N=11,035), 6 which are summarized by Davis and Smith (1984). We have aggregated the data for whites only; the bearing of race on family issues is itself a sufficiently important and complex problem as to require attention in a separate study. VARIABLES

Denomination

The measure of denomination in the General Social Survey is a question asked of all respondents in each year of the study: "What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no


nation may pervade the values of individual members so that high levels of attendance in conservative religious bodies will be found related to conservative attitudes but high attendance of liberal bodies may be associated with liberal attitudes. The first hypothesis is based on the assumption that frequent attenders within all denominations comprise a single moral community and that differences in attendance levels may index values better than does denominational identity. The second hypothesis holds instead that clusters of ideologically similar denominations comprise a number of moral communities and that attendance will reisforce different values depending on the overall conservative vs. liberal bearing of a given denomination. A third hypothesis is suggested by the literature on religion and deviance cited above, namely that attendance will be a strong predictor of conservative familism for more fundamentalist religions where such issues are salient, but will be a weaker predictor or nonpredictor in the more liberal denominations. Given the theoretical explanations of the three hypotheses concerning attendance presented above, we feel each is plausible. However, clearly family is of central importance to religious bodies in general as a vehicle for recruiting new members and for the sustenance of traditions. This being the case and because Mclntosh, Alston, and Alston (1979) based their explanations on GSS data (albeit only a small portion of the aggregated GSS samples we use in the present study), we expect that attendance will have more or less the same effect in each religious category studied. Specifically, we expect that the interaction between attendance and denomination predicting attitudes concerning family values and sexuality will not be statistically significant.


Family Values

We have limited our attention to 11 family-related items and scales. These include (1) a 3-item scale of restrictions on sex information, (2) disapproval of nonmarital intercourse (premarital, extramarital, and homosexual), (3) opposition to abortion under non-extreme circumstances (unmarried, economic considerations, mother doesn't want more children), (4) opposition to abortion under extreme circumstances (possible defect in baby, endangered health of mother, rape), (5) opposition to divorce, (6) belief that pornography causes breakdown in morals, (7) belief that pornography causes people to rape, (8) advocacy of laws against pornographic matenals, (9) an antipomography scale based on the above three items, (10) whether the respondent has seen an X-rated movie in the past year, and (11) sexism measured by 4 items on women in the home, in politics, and in the workforce. $ FORM OF THE ANALYSIS

Our analysis begins with presentation of denominational means for each of the above 11 items; see column 1 of Table 1. These figures address our first question: Are there significant denominational differences in family values? Specifically, do fundamentalist Protestants espouse the strong profamily values commonly associated with the New Christian Right? Do the other religious bodies in this study occupy more liberal positions congruent with their rankings in Glock and Stark's (1965) "new denominationalism"? We next look at denominational differences in family values controlling for age, sex, family income, education, and region (South vs. nonSouth). These findings are found in the means of column 2 of Table 1 obtained by using multiple classification analysis (MCA) 9 to leam what the denominational means on family items would be if there were no denomi-


religion?" If respondents replied that they were Protestant, they were asked: "What specific denomination is that, if any?" (Davis and Smith 1984, pp. 111-12). Following Peek and Brown (1980, p. 183, note 3) we have grouped together those who indicated that they were in Fundamental Protestant groups; see the Appendix for a list of these groups. In order to focus on the bearing of denominational preference on family issues we have excluded individuals who identified only with the imprecise rubric "Protestant." Due to the small number of such persons, we have also excluded those who identify with religious bodies outside Christianity and Judaism. These exclusions leave us with a single variable having the following nine categories: Catholic, Protestant fundamentalist, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Jewish, and no religion.'

Religion and Family Issues 1865

national differences in the control variables. Also presented in Table 1 are etas and betas to show the strength of association between denomination, regarded as a nominal scale variable, and each family item before and after the introduction of controls. Fs and their levels of statistical significance are presented with and without controls. These tests are performed with analysis of variance. Column 3 of Table 1 is a replication of the analysis in column 2 but for Protestant denominations only. Findings

Table 1: Sex and Sexism Variables Panel A: Sex information scale. The dependent variable in this analysis is a

scale measuring sex information restriction. Each of the 3 items in the scale is coded 0 or 1, where a 1 indicates agreement that sex information should be restricted. The alpha reliability of the scale is .652. None of the 9 groups expressed strong sentiment in favor of restricting sex information. Even so, there were noteworthy differences between groups. Protestant fundamentalists approve most strongly of restricting sex information. Baptists are next in approval and Catholics, whom Glock and Stark placed as conservatives in their new denominationalism, are also relatively opposed to the dissemination of sex information. As is generally the case throughout the findings of this study, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians show moderation. Episcopalians, Jews and nones register themselves as not opposed to making sex information available. When controls are introduced for gender, age, income, education, and region (South vs. non-South), the findings for the association between denomination and values are similar except that the differences among groups are smaller so that the strength of the association falls from an eta of .18 to a beta of .13. The analysis for Protestants only shows that there are differences among these denominations. Specifically, fundamentalists and Baptists are more likely to favor sex information restriction than are the other groups, among which there is little difference. Panel B: Morality of nonmarital sexual behavior. The dependent variable for

this analysis is a three-item scale measuring the belief that different forms of nonmarital sexual behavior are wrong. Each item has 4 alternatives, 0,1,2, and 3, where 0 indicates a belief that the behavior is not wrong at all and a 3 means it is always wrong. The alpha reliability for the scale is .659, and its values range from 0 to 9. Overall, respondents tend to see deviations from marital sexuality as being wrong. However if we look at the relative positions of the differ-


DENOMINATION AND FAMILY VALUES

ADJI

ADJ2

N

I.A Sex Information Restriction Scale .62 Prot. fund .65 .69 376 .48 Baptist .51 .45 991 Methodist .31 .36 .35 739 628 Lutheran .29 .31 .33 Presbyterl an .34 320 .27 .29 183 EpIscopal .20 .27 .32 .42 Cathol Ic 1,728 .39 .14 .22 Jewish 167 No rei iglon .28 458 .17 Eta-beta (a 11) .18 .13 Eta-beta .18 (Prot. only) .13 12.366 11.950 F 1.0 Anti-Abortion Scale-Extreme Circumstances .69 Prot. fund .74 .70 759 Baptist .40 .36 .36 1,993 .24 1,494 .22 Methodist .23 .21 .22 Lutheran .20 1,127 647 Presbyterl an .16 • 19 .15 Episcopal .11 .15 • 19 355 .56 3,445 Cathol ic .55 Jewish .04 .08 312 .14 No religion .17 929 Eta-beta (a 11) .24 .23 Eta-beta .21 (Prot. only) .24 F 76.353 52.323

UNADJ

ADJI N

Nonmarl tal (Wrong) 220 7.82 560 7.19 6.56 419 6.48 336 5.90 175 89 5.57 927 89 228

ADJ2

.12

.29

39.134

.14 15.520

.27 47.182 26.699 I.E Belief That Divorce Should Be Harder to Get 528 2.53 2.55 2.53 2.40 1,356 2.39 2.39 1,000 2.36 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.34 2.32 793 2.16 2.17 2.19 433 2.08 2.09 252 2.11 2.28 2.30 2,350 1.88 206 1.91 1.84 634 1.74 .20 .23

I. B Mora II ty of Sexual BehavIor 7.65 7·75 7.02 7.31 6.41 6.65 6.35 6.32 5.78 5.77 5.42 5.49 6.20 6.35 4.16 4.25 4.59 3.97 .32 .39

UNADJ

ADJI

ADJ2 N

.18

.27

16.245

12.865

.13

.21 121.577 54.507 I.F Sexism Scale 1.50 1.67 1.59 1.28 1.36 1.45 1. 16 1.08 1.17 1.23 1. 15 I. 15 1.02 1.14 1.07 .87 .72 .93 1.02 1.09 .71 .52 .88 .64 .23 .13

463 1,191 846 735 381 218 2,089 193 568

I.C Anti-Abortion Scale-Non-extreme CIrcumstances 2.08 761 2.17 2.07 1.64 1.67 1,992 1.75 1,490 1.37 1.33 1.33 1.41 1,125 1.37 1.35 646 1.08 I. 14 1.02 1.00 .94 .83 355 3,449 I. 75 1.77 312 .47 .33 .68 .76 930 .32 .29

UNADJ

Table 1. MEANS FOR SEX AND SEXISM VARIABLES BY DENOMINATION, UNADJUSTED (UNADJ) AND ADJUSTED FOR GENDER, AGE, INCOME, EDUCATION, AND REGION (SOUTHINON-SOUTH) FOR ALL DENOMINATIONS (ADJ1) AND FOR PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS ONLY (ADJ2); G.S.S. SAMPLE YEARS 1972-82


ClO 'J

\0

l::r'

n

~

... ....

~

~

.

til 0'1 UI

~

(I)

til

~

~

~

-S

0 n

en

-....

ClO

0'1 0'1


Panels C and D: Anti-abortion scales. Each of the scales for these analyses is

made up of 3 items, each coded 0 and 1, where a 1 indicates the belief that a woman should not be able to have an abortion under the condition given. The scale concerning extreme conditions has an alpha reliability of .774 while for the abortion-for-convenience scale alpha is .879. Each scale ranges from 0 to 3. Comparisons of means on the two abortion scales for each denomination show that respondents tend to be favorably disposed toward abortion if there are compelling reasons and to oppose it to some degree if it is sought for the convenience of the mother. Protestant fundamentalists are most inclined to disapprove of abortion for convenience (unmarried, economic hardship, don't want baby) and under extreme conditions (endangered life of the mother, possible deformity in baby, rape). Next in strength of opposition to abortion for convenience and under extreme circumstances are Catholics and Baptists. Even so, there is an important difference between these groups. Though they are about equally opposed to abortion for convenience, Catholics are appreciably more opposed to abortion under extreme circumstances than are Baptists. This finding is in accord with Jelen's (1984) conclusion that Catholic opposition to abortion is based on a high principle (right to life) and therefore less subject to the challenge of any extenuating circumstances. By contrast, according to Jelen, fundamentalists and, presumably, conservative Protestants base their opposition more on concern for sexual morality and are thus more willing to accept abortion if there are circumstances that matter more or make concern for sexual morality moot as in rape. Jews, nones, and Episcopalians show the highest levels of support for abortion under both non-extreme and extreme circumstances. It is noteworthy that with and without controls Jews are least inclined to condemn nonmarital sex and abortion under non-extreme circumstances. Orthodox Judaism's doctrine that intercourse should be limited to efforts at procreation would seem to make this finding unlikely. Our findings suggest that the teachings of Orthodoxy concerning sexuality hold very little


ent groups, the findings mirror those for restricting sex information. As expected, with and without controls for all 9 groups as well as among Protestants only, fundamentalists, followed by Baptists, are most inclined to view nonmarital sexual behavior as immoral. Catholics, Methodists, and Lutherans are moderately opposed to nonmarital sex. Nones, Jews, and Episcopalians are least inclined to view nonmarital sex as immoral. In general, the effect of introducing controls for social class and other demographic variables is to reduce the differences among the groups and in turn the strengths of association between values and religious body. For all 9 groups as well as for Protestants only, introducing controls does not result in dramatic reordering of religious bodies.


sway among most American Jews. Though still found to occupy middleground positions, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians clearly are not extremely opposed to abortion on either scale. Panel E: Opposition to easy divorce. In this analysis we look at a single item

Panel F: Sexism scale. This scale is based on 4 items, each coded 0 and 1,

pertaining to the desirability of (1) married women participating in the workforce, and of women (2) being involved in politics, (3) running for President, and (4) remaining in their homes. The alpha reliability of the scale is .658. Scores for individuals can range from 0 to 4, the laffer score indicating support for the "sexist" options for four items in the scale. It is noteworthy that no group obtains a mean above 2.00 and, therefore, in terms of these items, on average, none of these groups is extremely sexist. However, the groups in this study continue to sort out on a fundamentalist-liberal continuum. Fundamentalists were found to be most sexist. Baptists again are second most conservative. Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists are nearly indistinguishable in their middle-ground values. Jews, nones, and Episcopalians are decidedly lower on sexism than any of the other groups in this study and continue to show their opposition to sexism even after controls for sex, social class, etc. have been taken into account. Introducing controls reduces differences among the 9 groups. Table 2: Pornography and X-rated Films

The dependent variables in panels A, B, and C of Table 2 are individual items coded 0 and 1, where a 1 indicates an unfavorable attitude about pornography. In panel D we present an analysis pertaining to a scale composed of the three items in panels A, B, and C. This scale has an alpha reliability of .685 and ranges from 0 to 3. In panel E the dependent variable


concerning belief that divorces should be harder to get. This variable has three possible codes. A score of 1 indicates approval for easier divorce, of 2 that things should stay the same, and of 3 that divorces should be more difficult to get. Without indicating strong concern, most groups lean toward making divorces harder to get. In a now-familiar pattern, both with and without controls, Protestant fundamentalists are found to be most pro-family. Baptists are second in expressing such sentiments but are not substantially more opposed to easy divorce than Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. Nones, Jews, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians (in that order) show the least interest in making divorce harder to get. Being outside organized religion, nones were expected to show the lowest concern for the dissolution of a status ordinarily conferred by representatives of organized religion.


ATTENDANCE AND FAMILY VALUES

Attendance by Denomination Attendance varies considerably by denominational identification. In Table 3 we present the mean for attendance for each of the 9 religious bodies. For this analysis frequency of attendance has been coded in 9 levels ranging from 0 (never attend) to 8 (attend several times a week). In the absence of any controls, Protestant fundamentalists, Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans have the highest attendance levels in that order followed by Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Jews, and those with no religion.


is a single item coded 0 and 1, where 1 indicates that the respondent had seen an X-rated movie in the past year. There is a good deal of variability in attitudes and beliefs about pornography across denominations, some groups being solidly negative and others being largely unconcerned. As expected, Protestant fundamentalists have the most consistently negative beliefs. As shown in the 5 panels of Table 2, fundamentalists are most inclined to believe that pornography causes a breakdown in morals (75%) and causes people to rape (72%). They are most in favor of laws against its availability (62%) and consequently have the highest antipornography scale score (mean of 2.12 out of a possible 3.00 based on responses to the 3 preceding items). Fundamentalists also have the lowest proportion (11%) who have seen an X-rated movie in the past year. Those groups who show themselves to be liberal on the family and sex items of Table 1 show themselves to be liberal with regard to pomography. Nones obtain the most liberal scale score (Panel C) but, when control variables are employed, they are found to be less liberal than Jews. Among the 9 religious bodies, Episcopalians are consistently the third most liberal group on the individual pornography items and, in turn, on the scale. Jews and nones are consistently liberal in terms of reporting the highest proportion of members to have seen an X-rated film in the past year (34% and 32%). The proportion for Jews remains essentially unchanged when controls are introduced but the figure falls to 25 percent for nones. The liberality of nones is in part due to their being disproportionately young and male. Controlling for these variables results in their being found somewhat less liberal. The findings for pornography and X-rated movies are especially interesting for Episcopalians. They are among the more liberal groups with regard to the pornography items and scale but are among the least inclined to see an X-rated film (15%); this finding is hardly affected by our control variables. Jews' longstanding support of freedom of speech and religion may explain their low disapproval of pornography.

AOJ2 N

2.A Proportion Believing Pornography Causes BreakdOi'ln in Morals Prot. fund .75 .75 528 .73 Baptist .66 .64 .67 1,410 1,028 Methodist .59 .59 .57 Lutheran .61 .60 .59 769 Presbyteri an .58 454 .55 .57 Episcopal .52 .49 .51 247 Cathol ic .58 2,462 .57 Jewish .31 .31 207 No religion .28 .36 670 Eta-beta (all) .23 • 19 Eta-beta (Prot. only) .12 .13 F 34.632 14.049 2.0 Antipornography Scale Prot. fund 2.04 2.11 2.12 514 1.80 Baptist 1. 81 1. 74 1,396 Methodist 1.61 1,017 1.52 1.57 Lutheran 1.60 1.58 1.65 761 1: 44 Presbyterian 1.49 1.51 451 Ep i scopa 1 1.34 241 1.30 1.35 Cathol l c 2,441 1.51 1.55 Jewish .85 .89 203 No religion .75 1.03 658 Eta-beta (all) .27 .21 Eta-beta (Prot. only) .17 .17 F 48.659 27.051

AOJI AOJI

AOJ2

N

.13

.05 9.860

.06 3.540

23.969 14.497 2.E Proportion Who Have Seen X-Rated Movie in Past Year .11 .12 .11 529 .16 .16 1,414 .17 .18 .17 .19 1,031 .17 .16 .17 771 .18 .21 • 19 455 .18 .16 .15 247 .20 2,466 • 19 .34 208 .35 .32 .25 672 .14 .10

.15

2.B Proportion Believing Pornography Causes People to Rape .68 .72 .70 528 .61 1,408 .65 .63 1,027 .55 .53 .55 .56 .56 .58 769 .52 .52 .54 455 .42 .42 .43 246 .54 .53 2,463 208 .31 .35 .29 .38 672 .21 .16

UNAOJ

AOJI AOJ2 N

.12 24.676

.14 17.667

2.C Proportion Advocating Laws Against Availability of Pornography .61 .63 514 .59 .48 .50 .51 1,403 .46 .42 .44 1,023 .42 .45 .43 763 .40 452 .36 .39 242 .40 .38 .36 .40 .42 2,448 .22 .21 204 660 .17 .29 .21 .15

UNAOJ

--....

UNAOJ

00

EDUCATION, AND REGION (SOUTH/NON-SOUTH) FOR ALL DENOMINATIONS (ADJ1) AND FOR PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS ONLY (ADJ2)

00 '1

I,Q

....

::r

~ n

a=

.W

U1

0'1

til

~

a-

0)

til

~

~

eo

n

0

C/)

~

Table 2. MEANS FOR PORNOGRAPHY VARIABLES BY DENOMINATION, UNADJUSTED (UNADJ) AND ADJUSTED FOR GENDER, AGE, INCOME,



Table 3. CHURCH ATTENDANCE BY DENOMINATION, UNADJUSTED (UNADJ), AND ADJUSTED FOR GENDER, AGE, INCOME, EDUCATION, AND REGION (SOUTH/NON-SOUTH) FOR ALL DENOMINATIONS (ADJ1) AND FOR PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS ONLY (ADJ2); G.S.S. SAMPLE YEARS 1972-82

UNADJ

Eta-beta (all) Eta-beta (Prot. only)

5.25 4.23 3.65 3.96 3.59 3.49 4.62 3.57 .76

5.35 4.14 3.40 4.00 3.36 3.12 4.78 2.32 1.04

.41

.41

.20

F

225.56

ADJ2 5.49 4.23 3.51 4.17 3.47 3.20 ----

N 609 1,621 1,232 908 523 298 2,741 245 732

.25 63.20

When controls are introduced for age, gender, income, education, and region much the same order is obtained except that the order of Jews and Episcopalians is reversed. Denomination and attendance are strongly related as shown by eta = .41 (no controls) and identical beta = . 41 (with controls). Attendance patterns presumably reflect norms and values within religious bodies and are integrally related to denominational identity. It is, therefore, important to assess the separate impacts of attendance and denomination on family values. This problem can be conceived in terms of the possibility of two main and one interactive effects relevant to these questions: (1) whether attendance, independent of denomination, has any effect on values, (2) whether controlling for attendance affects the relationship between denomination and values, and (3) whether denomination and attendance interact statistically. The Effects of Attendance on Family Values

To address these questions, we add attendance as a categorical variable along with denomination to an analysis of variance which includes controls for age, gender, income, education, and region. For this analysis, attendance is coded into 4 categories: (1) never or less than once a year, (2) once, twice, or several times a year, (3) once a month to nearly every week, and (4) weekly or more frequently. Including attendance in the analysis had the uniform effect of reducing apparent differences in values among the 9 religious bodies. However, in no case is the effect of denomi-


Prot.fund Baptist Methodist Lutheran Presbyterian Episcopal Catholic Jewish Wo religion

ADJI


The Attendance-by-Denomination Interaction Effect

For the 8 items in which there are significant interaction effects between denomination and attendance, we use the procedure suggested by Andrews, Morgan, and Sonquist (1969, pp. 29-30) to examine the source of interaction. We create a 36-category variable (9 religion categories x 4 attendance levels) and enter this variable into the MCA analysis along with our other controls. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 4. 1 The analysis for each dependent variable in Table 4 consists of 9 rows and 5 columns. Each row contains mean scores for denomination for each of 4 levels of attendance, with adjustments for age, gender, income, education, and region. In the fifth column Pearson correlation coefficients are given for the association between attendance level and family issue variables for each denomination. Denominational means on each dependent variable are weighted when calculating these r's in order to avoid having to make the untenable assumption that means based on low N's are as reliable as those based on much more substantial N's. In noting that these r's tend to be quite high, the reader must keep in mind that calculations based on these means ignore within-group variance, thereby allowing for inflated r's vis-à-vis those that would be obtained from data for individuals rather than group means. The r's presented in Table 4 show the association between attendance and weighted group means on each dependent variable. 11 There are two ways in which the denomination by attendance interactions may be regarded: that the effect of attendance varies by denomina-


nation reduced to statistical insignificance. For 9 of the 11 dependent variables, the main effect of attendance—as reflected in the beta—is greater than that of denomination. The few exceptions to this pattern include responses to the question of whether pornography causes rape (etas are identical) and for the sexism scale (eta for denomination is slightly higher than that for attendance). We have not presented the MCA results for these analyses because in 8 of the 11 analyses the analysis of variance reveals interaction between denomination and attendance statistically significant at the .05 level or less. When independent variables interact, findings for Multiple Classification Analysis may be misleading (Andrews, Morgan, and Sonquist 1969). The variables for which there are no significant interactions are those concerning desire to make divorce harder to get, the scale of attitudes about nonmarital sex, and the item concerning belief that pornography encourages rape. These 3 items do not appear to us to be a theoretically meaningful subset of the 11 dependent variables in this study, and, therefore, we do not attempt to explain why these items do not obtain significant interaction effects as do the other 8 items.



tion, or that the effect of denomination varies by attendance. The means of Table 4 can be examined for either interpretation. Since we view attendance patterns as being an important aspect of denominational identification, we will focus on the different effects of attendance within denominational categories. In general, attendance has a monotonic positive effect on conservative family values. The departures from this general pattern are ones in which attendance within any given denomination has little or no effect. For the sex information restriction scale (panel a in Table 4), the effect of attendance is not strong and monotonic for Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or nones. On the scale for abortion in non-extreme circumstances (panel b), attendance and values show similar relationships for 7 of the groups while for Episcopalians the effect is less strong and for nones attendance appears to be related to liberal values. Much the same finding holds for abortion under extreme circumstances (panel c) except that Episcopalians as well as nones show attendance to be related to liberal rather than conservative values. On the sexism scale (panel d) the denominations departing most from the positive monotonic pattern are the Episcopalians, Jews, and Presbyterians. The relationship is similar for those with no religion. On the pornography item concerning morals (panel e) attendance among nones is weakly related while for Episcopalians there is basically no relationship. For the item on laws against pornography (panel f), Jews and nones depart from the monotonic positive relationship for the other religious bodies. For the antipornography scale (panel g) Episcopalians, Jews, and nones depart from this pattern. Finally, for the item on having seen an X-rated movie in the past year (panel h), departures from the general pattern occur for Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Jews, and nones with reversal in direction of the effect of attendance occurring for Episcopalians and nones. The pattern of attendance being positively related to conservative values is strongest for Catholics, Protestant fundamentalists, Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists. Attendance effects tend to be weak for Jews and Presbyterians, extremely weak for Episcopalians, and totally inconsistent across dependent variables for those with no religion. There is very little evidence to suggest that attendance at churches in the liberal denominations is related to liberal values. Apart from the findings for nones, there are only 3 instances of 64 in which attendance appears to be associated with liberal values. Each of these relationships is weak and involves denominations (Presbyterians and Episcopalians) in which the overall relationship between attendance and values is weak.

874 / Social Forces Volume 65:3, March 1987 Table 4. MEANS OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES BV DENOMINATION BYATTENDANCE, ADJUSTED FOR AGE, GENDER, INCOME, EDUCATION, AND REGION Attendance

Attendance 1

2

3

4

r**

.50 -40 .31 .27 .18 .28 .30 .21 .29

.45 .39 .27 .32 .33 .19 .34 .28 .21

1.00 1.22 1.52 1.72 (.998) (.924) 1.13 1.10 1.38 1.47 (.876) .96 1.11 1.12 1.16 (.765) 1.09 1.03 1.10 1.41 1.32 •90 1.01 1.13 (-.326) (.417) .76 .84 .96 .94 (.971) .97 1.02 1.12 1.14 .85 .63 (.242) .55 .79 .91 1.45 .88 .80 (.231)

4 4.G Antipornography Scale

4

.80 (.944) 1.61 1.70 1.92 2.33 (.909) 1.31 1.43 1.58 2.10 .65 (.606) 1.06 1.22 1.46 1.70 .40 .40 .98 1.07 1.48 1,88 (.970) .84 1.15 1.42 .40 (.379) 1.14 .32 (-.405) .76 1.00 .93 1.31 (.946) 1.14 1.27 1.75 2.27 .56 .43 .44 .66 1.00 .52 (.918) (.202) .70 .84 .60 .25 .57

4.D Sexism Scale

Prot.fund Baptist Methodist Lutheran Presbyterian Episcopal Catholic Jewish No religion

3

r*

(.974) (.942) (.995) (.970) (.610; (.840) (.980) (.865) (.275)

4.E Proportion Believing Pornography Causes Breakdown in Morals

.57 .52 .50 .51 .52 .45 .46 .26 .35

.61 .61 .52 .54 .49 .56 .49 .33 .41

.62 .64 .64 .59 .49 .48 .59 .26 .23

.84 (.925) (.980) .75 .64 (.913) (.954) .70 (.706) .75 .48 (-.068) (.986) .66 (.691) .57 .39 (.270)

4.H Proportion Who Have Seen X-Rated Movie in Past Year

.19 Prot.fund 1.54 1.69 1.77 2.33 (.952) .22 1.38 1.58 1.73 2.12 Baptist (.979) .24 1.31 1.37 1.74 1.76 (.922) Methodist .21 Lutheran 1.35 1.46 1.59 1.86 (.971) .24 (.862) Presbyterian 1.28 1.32 1.39 1.89 .17 1.17 1.43 1.32 1.37 (.410) Episcopal Catholic 1.20 1.34 1.53 1.79 (.992) .22 .82 Jewish .39 (.560) •74 1.38 .94 .25 No religion .53 1.06 (-.162) 1.00 1.07

.18 .18 .22 .19 .17 .16 .26 .29 .29

.17 .16 .14 •17 .26 .21 .19 .55 .21

.07 ( - .922) .12 ( - .992) .15 (-.896) .13 (-.979) .16 (-.327) .15 (.108) .14 (-.867) .22 (-.050) .40 (.700)

* For this analysis the 9 attendance categories of the G.S.S. have been collapsed to 4: 1=less than once a year; 2=1 to several times a year; 3=once a month to nearly every week; 4 weekly or more frequent.

** Pearson's r between attendance levels (1 through 4) and weighted means on each dependent variable.

Conclusions SUMMARY

Respondents identifying with Christian denominations are, on average, more conservative in family values than are jews or those who identify with no denomination. Fundamentalist Protestants are found to be consis-


.20 .29 .30 .12 .35 .37 .24 .16 .26

2

4.B Anti-Abortion Scale-Non-extreme Circumstances

4.A Sex Information Restriction Scale

Prot.fund Baptist Methodist Lutheran Presbyterian Episcopal Catholic Jewish No religion

1

Religion and Family Issues / 875 Table 4. (continued) Attendance

1

2

3

4

r**

4.0 Anti-Abortion Scale-Extreme Circumstances

.48 .27 .16 .13 .11 .11 .21 .09 .11

.52 .27 .29 .14 .22 .15 .46 .08 .02

.91 .59 .33 .43 .24 .34 .93 .40 .16

(.949) (.834) (.909) (.699) (.694) (-.295) (.947) (.695) (-.791)

4.F Proportion Advocating Laws Against Pornography

.35 .35 .36 .33 .31 .33 .30 .20 .28

.45 .39 .35 .38 .32 .38 .33 .23 .28

.51 .49 .50 .42 .38 .39 .40 .15 .13

.72 .64 .50 .53 .48 .38 .52 .35 .30

(.979) (..972) (.863) (.964) (.941) (.720) (.973) (..397) (-.398)

tently the most pro-family. The other groups in this study are also highly consistent in their rank order on conservatism with regard to family issues. Even so, in an absolute sense, no group is found to be consistently conservative. Instead, degree of conservatism varies with the content of each issue. For example, as expected, Protestant fundamentalists, Baptists, and Catholics are most opposed to abortion under extreme circumstances and to the dissemination of sex education materials. However, these groups are not extremely conservative on these issues in an absolute sense. On the divorce item, only Protestant fundamentalists are highly conservative. On the abortion-for-convenience scale and on all pornography measures, means range across the liberal-conservative spec-


.37 .25 .17 .17 .17 .55 .20 .08 .16


HYPOTHESIS I: DENOMINATIONALISM

In general, we find support for our first hypothesis, that attitudes concerning family values are correlated with denominational identification in much the same way as is fundamentalist religious belief. Specifically, we find: (1) a Protestant effect, as evidenced by the greater homogeneity among Protestants than among all 9 groups in the study; in 9 of 11 comparisons, the eta for Protestants is smaller than for all groups taken together; and (2) a denominational continuum effect that, in general, supports Glock and Stark's (1965) new denominationalism framework and Hargrove's (1983) ordering based on official denominational positions on family issues. These findings suggest that the new denominationalism is relevant not only to the theological issues for which it was developed, but to social issues as well. Further, the correspondence between our findings and the rankings arrived at by Hargrove suggests that church leadership is at least to some extent in tune with lay members. Our findings do not support the idea that Protestantism is best understood as a "two party" system of liberal and conservative denominations as suggested by the historical analysis of Marty (1970) and as reflected in the work of Broughton (1975), Johnson (1967), and McLoughlin (1968). There are not just liberal and conservative denominations, there are also denominations that consistently fall between these two extremes as suggested by the analysis of Carroll, Johnson, and Marty (1979). However, these and other findings do support Marty's (1970) idea and Harrison and Lazerwitz's (1982) conclusion that it is the private world (i.e., family and sexuality) that is most relevant to denominationalism rather than the public world of politics and economics. In a recent study Hughes and Hertel (1985) looked at the relationship between denomination and a number of attitudinal and behavioral indicators in the General Social Survey. A denominational ranking comparable to that found in the present study was found for tolerante (of homosexuals, atheists,


trum. Only on the nonmarital sex behavior scale is there widespread absolute conservatism. While the range of conservatism varies with the issue considered, the ranks of the 9 groups are very stable. On the family issues considered as a whole, individuals who identify with the traditionally more conservative denominations are decidedly more conservative than any other groups. Protestant fundamentalists and Baptists are most pro-family, as other researchers have suggested (Hadden 1983; Oberschall 1984). Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists are generally moderately conservative, and Presbyterians moderately liberal. Jews and Episcopalians are consistently the most liberal. Nones are also more liberal than other groups, in part because of their sex (disproportionately male) and age (young).

Religion and Family Issues ! 877 communists, militarists, and racists). Comparable results were also found for some, but not all, measures of racial attitudes. However, items and scales concerning work, political preference, redistribution of wealth, importance of money, and approval of police violence showed no particular pattern with denominational identification. Such findings, along with those in the present paper, suggest that social conservatism has different correlates from those of economic and political conservatism. HYPOTHESIS II: ATTENDANCE

DISCUSSION

Our findings provide a strong affirmative answer to the question "Do denominations matter?" posed by Harrison and Lazerwitz (1982), but answered by them only in regard to Jews. We have found clear cultural differences on family values separating denominational groups. These differences among religious groups are evident even after controlling for education, income, age, gender, southern vs. nonsouthern residence, and urban vs. rural residence. We also have found that the effect of attendance


Our findings do not support our hypothesis that attendance is associated with conservative family values regardless of denomination. Nor is there support for the alternative hypothesis that among those identifying with conservative denominations, attendance is associated with more conservative values, while among those identifying with liberal denominations, attendance is related to liberal values. Instead, it appears that attendance has (1) a strong conservative effect on those who identify with the more conservative denominations, that is, Protestant fundamentalists, Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists, (2) a weak, inconsistent effect on Presbyterians, Jews, and especially Episcopalians, and (3) no particular effect on those with no religion. For each of the 8 religious bodies, the effect of attendance is to increase conservatism thereby providing weak support for our second hypothesis above. However, the clearest pattern concerning attendance effects is the support provided for the hypothesis developed from the religion and deviance literature, namely that attendance is a strong predictor for more conservative groups and a weak or non-predictor among liberal groups. This outcome may derive from the fact that there is normative ambiguity in American society concerning so-called pro-family issues and there are few secular institutional supports for the extreme conservative positions on these issues. Thus, in denominations in which such issues are particularly salient, religiosity as measured by attendance has a strong conservative effect, while among other religious groups, the impact of attendance on family issues is weak or inconsistent.


level? Suggestions for Future Study The overall pattern for attendance supports the general conclusion of

Greeley (1963), White (1968), and McIntosh, Alston, and Alston (1979) that moral communities form through frequent interaction. According to White's (1968) interactional model of religious influence, religion influences values through interaction among individuals who comprise moral communities through their concern with these particular values. Testing that theory would require data not only on denomination, attendance, and values, but also on congregation and interaction patterns for a large


varies by denomination. The question that remains is: "Why do denominations matter?" The answer to this question depends on what is meant. It could be interpreted: "Why is there a continuum of denominations from liberal to conservative?" Harrison and Lazerwitz's (1982) answer to this question regarding Jewish denominationalism was to locate its source in the different levels of assimilation across the Jewish population. Unfortunately we cannot explain denominationalism across the main religious groups in American society with such a succinct, comprehensive explanation. Clearly the "two-party" historical model developed by Marty (1970) helps us to locate the ends of the continuum of Protestant bodies, but is of little or no help in explaining why other Protestant bodies fall in a consistent order across the middle, nor does it explain the positron of Catholics as moderate conservatives or of Jews as liberals. A comprehensive answer to this version of the question of why denominations matter in American society may be more likely to result from historical-institutional analysis of each denomination than from further survey research. If interpreted to mean, "How are members of different denominations socialized to have attitudes which make the denominations ideologically distinct from each other?" the question carries both structural and social psychological implications. We would want to know where such learning takes place: in the family, in the church, in the community, or in combinations of these contexts. We would also want to know what kind of learning process is involved; for example, is the religious factor largely the result of formal and overt socialization (religious services, Sunday school)? Alternatively: Is the influence of religion more a function of the extent to which individuals interact with others having a given religious identity regardless of whether that contact takes place in a setting that is clearly recognized as religious? Still another possibility, might the impact of religion result more from an individual's identification with and acceptance of teachings at the level of denomination rather than at the congregational


number of individuals and congregations. Then it would be possible to compare the relative influence on values by three different levels of religious ties: (1) to denominations, (2) to congregations, and (3) to the moral communities of frequent attenders referred to by McIntosh, Alston, and Alston (1979). In the absence of such data, it is not possible to compare the relative impact of each of these attendance effects nor is it possible to test White's (1968) argument that the religious factor is a set of group norms grounded on interaction patterns, which need not be primarily through attendance or in other expressly religious contexts. 1. See for example: Hadden (1983), Hargrove (1983), and Oberschall (1984). 2. That condusion has been debated by Powell and Steelman (1982), who criticize Peek and Brown's (1982) measurement of fundamentalism (a dichotomy) and of sexism (based on two items), and Peek (1982), who defends the original measures and study. 3. Though this relationship has been couched in substantive terms, we wish to note that a methodological interpretation is also relevant: the less the variance in any dependent variable, regardless of its substantive content, the less the capacity of other variables to predict that variance. 4. Neither Hargrove (1983) nor Glock and Stark (1965) discuss the positions of Jews or nones. 5. In keeping with Glock and Stark's assessment of Roman Catholics as conservatives, we have predicted Baptists and Catholics to be about equally conservative. 6. This is the maximum number of subjects in any one analysis. The number varies because some items have appeared in all of the General Social Surveys while other items have appeared only during certain years. For further details, see Davis and Smith (1984, Appendix Q). 7. We recognize that there is a good deal of variability in attitudes and values within the religious bodies in this study due in part to evangelical movements (Hargrove 1983; Harrison 1974). There is also reason to believe that there are differences between American and Southern Baptists, and between American Lutherans and Missouri Synod Lutherans, the laffer category of each pair being more conservative (Glock and Stark 1965). Unfortunately, we have been unable to test for these differences because in only one sample year of the General Social Survey (1984) are distinctions made among Lutheran synods and among various Baptist groups. These problems of within-group variation in attitudes and values are not as serious as they at first appear. First, in regard to Baptists, a substantial proportion of white Baptists are Southem Baptists: the ratio of Southern Baptist Convention members to the combined membership of the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. and the American Baptist Association is more than seven and a half to one (Jacquet 1984). Thus, when we consider attitudes of Baptists as a whole, we are looking mostly at Southern Baptists rather than at a number of diverse groups. A control for region will, to a limited degree, reduce the impact on the analysis of classifying Southern with American Baptists. Second, for the one year of the General Social Survey (1984) for which data are available for making distinctions between different types of Baptists and Lutherans, we ran analyses on the available items concerning secular values and attitudes. American Baptists were more liberal on race issues and general tolerance issues than Southern Baptists but were not greatly different on other issues. We found that the Missouri Synod Lutherans were no more conservative on secular attitudes and values than other Lutherans. If anything they appeared more liberal. These findings are not conclusive because the sample sizes are too low. However, such findings do not strongly challenge the utility of combining the various groups of


Notes


References Albrecht, Stan L., Bruce A. Chadwick, and David S. Alcorn. 1977. "Religiosity and Deviance: Application of an Attitude-Behavior Contingent Consistency Model:' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16:263-74. Andrews, Frank, James Morgan, and John Sonquist. 1969. Multiple Classification Analysis. Institute for Social Research. Bouma, Gary. 1973. "Beyond Lenski: A Critical Review of Recent 'Protestant Ethic' Research:' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 12:141-56. Broughton, Walter. 1975. "Theistic Conceptions in American Protestantism." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 14:341-44. Burkett, Steven R., and Mervin White. 1974. "Hellfire and Delinquency: Another Look." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13:455-62. Carroll, Jackson W, Douglas W. Johnson, Martin E. Marty. 1979. Religion in America: 1950 to the Present. Harper & Row. Davis, James A., and Tom W. Smith. 1984. General Social Surveys, 1972-1984: Cumulative Codebook. National Opinion Research Center. Gallup, George, Jr., and David Poling. 1980. The Search for America's Faith. Abingdon. Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark. 1965. Religion and Society in Tension. Rand McNally. Gorsuch, Richard L., and Daniel Aleshire. 1974. "Christian Faith and Prejudice: A Review and Interpretation of Research:' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13:281-307. Greeley, Andrew. 1963. 'A Note on the Origins of Religious Differences." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 3:21-31. Hadaway, C. Kirk, Kirk W Elifson, and David M. Petersen. 1984. "Religious Involvement and Drug Use Among Urban Adolescents." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23:109-28. Hadden, Jeffrey K. 1983. "Televangelism and the Mobilization of a New Christian Right


Baptists and Lutherans. Finally, we looked at the variance in attitudes across the denominations (data not shown). We found no tendency for the variance among Baptists (as a whole) or Lutherans (as a whole) to be greater than the variance among, say, Catholics or Methodists. 8. The mnemonics used for items in the General Social Survey Codebook (Davis and Smith 1984) and the years for which data are available and have been used in the present study are as follows: (1) SEXEDUC, PILL, TEENPILL:1974,75,77,82, and 83; (2) PREMARSX, XMARSEX, HOMOSEX:1974,77,82; (3) ABPOOR, ABSINGLE, ABNOMORE: all eleven years; (4) ABDEFECT, ABRAPE, ABHLTH: all eleven years; (5) DIVLAW: 1974,75,76,77,78,82, and 83; (6) PORNMORL; (7) PORNRAPE; and (8) PORNLAW used in (9) our antipornography scale: each available in 1973,75,76,78,80,83, and 84; (10) XMOVIE: 1973,75,76,78,80,83, and 84; and (11) sexism scale based on FEHOME, FEWORK, FEPRES, FEPOL: each available in 1974, 75,77,78,82,83, and 85. The exact content of each of these items may be found in Davis and Smith (1984). 9. See Andrews, Morgan, and Sonquist (1969) for discussion of how MCA works and SPSSX (1983, pp. 449-50) for the procedures we employed for the present report. 10.We have included those respondents with no religion in the analysis. As we noted above, the measure of religion is actually a measure of religious preference, not membership. Persons who do not claim preference for any religious body are not necessarily nonattenders (as can be seen in Table 3) or nonbelievers. 11.Note that for each dependent variable the patterns among these r's help to reveal the nature of interactions between attendance and denomination but do not demonstrate the existence of interaction. That demonstration was provided in the analysis of variance noted above.

Religion and Family Issues / 881 Appendix. RELIGIOUS BODIES CODED AS PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTALISTS Evangelical, Evangelist Evangelical Reformed Evangelist Free Church Holiness; Church of Holiness Pilgrim Holiness Jehovah's Witnesses Nazarene Pentecostal Assembly of God Pentecostal ChLrch of God Pentecostal Pentecostal Holiness, Holiness Pentecostal Seventh Day Adventist United Holiness Holiness Church of God Evangelical Covenant Missionary Baptist Other Fundamentalist

Family Policy." In Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society, edited by William D'Antonio and Joan Aldous. Sage. Hargrove, Barbara. 1983. "Family in the White American Protestant Experience." In Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society, edited by William D'Antonio and Joan Aldous. Sage. Harrison, Michael I. 1974. "Sources of Recruitment to Catholic Pentecostalism." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13:49-64. Harrison, Michael I., and Bernard Lazerwitz. 1982. "Do Denominations Matter?" American Journal of Sociology 88:356-77. Hirschi, Travis, and Rodney Stark. 1969. "Hellfire and Delinquency." Social Problems 17:20213. Hughes, Michael, and Bradley R. Hertel. 1985. "Religious Denomination and Social Attitudes: Evidence from National Surveys 1972-1982." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Association for the Sociology of Religion. Hunter, James D. 1984. "Religion and Political Civility: The Coming Generation of American Evangelicals." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23:364-80. Jacquet, Constant H., Jr. (ed.). 1984. Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 1984. Abingdon. Delen, Ted G.1984. "Respect for Life, Sexual Morality, and Opposition to Abortion." Review of Religious Research 25:220-31. Johnson, Benton. 1%2. "Ascetic Protestantism and Political Preference." Public Opinion Quarterly 26:35-46. . 1%7. "Theology and the Positron of Pastors on Public Issues." American Sociological Review 32:334-42. McIntosh, William, and Jon P. Alston. 1977. "Acceptance of Abortion Among White Catholics and Protestants, 1962 and 1975." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16:295-303. Mclntosh, William Alex, Letitia T. Alston, and Jon P. Alston. 1979. "The Differential Impact of Religious Preference and Church Attendance on Attitudes Toward Abortion." Review of Religious Research 20:195-213. McLoughlin, William. 1968. "Is There a Third Force in Christendom?" In Religion in America, edited by William McLoughlin and Robert Bellah. Beacon Press.


Evangelical Congregational Assembly of God Free Will Baptist Eden Evangelist Holiness (Nazarene) Baptist (Northern) Brethren Church, Brethren Witness Holiness Brethren, Plymouth United Brethren, United Brethren in Christ Church of Christ, Evangelical Church of Christ Church of God (except with Christ and Holiness) Church of God in Christ Church of God in Christ Holiness Church of the Living God



Marty, Martin. 1970. Religious Empire. Dial. Nelsen, Hart M., and James F. Rooney. 1982. "Fire and Brimstone, Lager and Pot: Religious Involvement and Substance Use." Sociological Analysis 43:247-56. Oberschall, Anthony. 1984. "The New Christian Right in North Carolina." Presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association. Peek, Charles W. 1982. "Deficient Methods or Different Data? Another Interpretation of Divergent Findings on Fundamentalism and Political Sexism: Response to Powell and Steelman." Social Forces 60:1159-67. Peek, Charles W, and Sharon Brown. 1980. "Sex Prejudice Among White Protestants: Like or Unlike Ethnic Prejudice?" Social Forces 59:169-85. Powell, Brian, and Lala Carr Steelman. 1982. "Fundamentalism and Sexism: A Reanalysis of Peek and Brown." Social Forces 60:1154-58. Rojek, Dean. 1973. "The Protestant Ethic and Political Preference." Social Forces 52:168 -77. Schuman, Howard. 1971. "The Religious Factor in Detroit: Review, Replication and Reanalysis." American Sociological Review 36:30-48. SPSSX. 1983. SPSSX User's Guide. McGraw-Hill. Stacey, William, and Anson Shupe. 1982. "Correlates of Support for the Electronic Church." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 21:291-303. Swatos, William H., Jr. 1981. "Beyond Denominationalism?: Community and Culture in American Religion." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 20:217-27. Tittle, Charles R., and Michael R. Welch. 1983. "Religiosity and Deviance: Toward a Contingency Theory of Constraining Effectsi' Social Forces 61:653-82. White, Richard H. 1968. "Toward a Theory of Religious Influence." Pacific Sociological Review 11:23-28. Winter, J. Alan. 1974. "Quantitative Studies of the Applicability of the Weber Thesis to Post World War II, U.S.A.: A Call for Redirected Efforts." Review of Religious Research 16:47-58.