Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Two-edged Sword: The Differential Effect of Religious Belief and Religious Social Context on Attitudes towards Democracy

Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Different components of the religious experience have differing effects on attitudes towards democracy. Using heteroskedastic maximum likelihood models and data from the fourth wave of the World Values Survey for 45 democratic countries, we show that as a personal belief system, religiosity contrasts with democratic principles, generating opposition to democracy while increasing ambivalence towards democratic principles among religious people. Nevertheless, at the group level, religion also serves as a social institution which increases the homogeneity of one’s social network, leading to lower ambivalence, and makes for an active minority group which benefits from the democratic framework, consequently increasing support overall for a democratic regime. This double-edged sword effect explains the mixed results currently found in the literature on religiosity and democracy, and clearly illustrates the multidimensionality of religiosity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The final countries included in the analysis and their Freedom House scores are: Austria (1), Canada (1), Denmark (1), Finland (1), Iceland (1), Ireland (1), Luxembourg (1), Malta (1), Netherlands (1), United States (1), Belgium (1.5), Czech Republic (1.5), Estonia (1.5), France (1.5), Germany (1.5), Great Britain (1.5), Hungary (1.5), Italy (1.5), Japan (1.5), Latvia (1.5), Lithuania (1.5), Poland (1.5), Slovakia (1.5), South Africa (1.5), Spain (1.5), Bulgaria (2), Chile (2), Croatia (2), Greece (2), Peru (2), Romania (2), India (2.5), Mexico (2.5), Philippines (2.5), Argentina (3), Republic of Moldova (3), Serbia (3), Montenegro (3), Albania (3.5), Bangladesh (3.5), Macedonia (4), Ukraine (4), Tanzania (4), Russian Federation (5), Uganda (5).

  2. Since the measure is composed of two items, which does not allow for the utilization of CFA, we use a summary index.

  3. Unfortunately, the WVS questionnaire does not include many items that could be used as anchors for other scales.

  4. Missing values in the dataset lead to a serious decline in the number of observations available due to listwise deletion. To overcome such problems, for measures derived from confirmatory factor analysis, we use the MPLUS software’s missing command, which uses full information of maximum likelihood from all available data unless all items in the factor model are missing.

  5. Independent Christianity may mean different things in different contexts depending on the broader institutional arrangements. Although we coded “Christians” (14 observations from Canada only) as belonging to the Catholic tradition, Manza and Brooks (1997) code unaffiliated Christians in the “Protestant” category, while Mueller (2009) codes them into the "other" category (coding scheme obtained via personal communication, December, 2010). However, because the number of observations for "Christian" identifiers in our dataset is small, recoding them into an "other/independent" category or dropping them from the analysis leads to no substantive changes in our results.

  6. The average of the score in our dataset is 1.22, and the range is 1–5.5. Since non-democratic countries were not considered in our analysis, the average is lower than the world average of 3.4.

  7. We reran the models using binary measures that specify a country’s dominant religious tradition (as in Norris and Inglehart 2004) rather than the reported percentage of each denomination (as in Barro and McCleary 2003a, b, and Durlauf et al. 2005). The results are robust to this alteration in measure.

  8. Effect sizes are comparable, as all individual level variables are coded to vary 0–1, with the exception of age, measured in years (see frequencies table in the appendix).

  9. Note that we took the logs in order to constrain the variance to positive values; thus changes in the independent variables predict changes in the logs of the variance.

  10. Each model included one religious tradition at a time such that the baseline is all others. For example, the multilevel model that tests for the effect of being a Protestant on support for democracy conditional on the dominance of Protestant tradition in a country is: The multilevel model for attitudes towards democracy is \( {\text{Y}}_{\text{ij}} = \beta_{{0{\text{j}}}} + \beta_{{ 1 {\text{j}}}} \times {\text{X}}_{{ 1 {\text{ij}}}} + \beta_{{2{\text{j}}}} \times {\text{X2}}_{\text{j}} + \sum\nolimits_{q = 3}^{p} {\beta {\text{qj}} + \varepsilon_{\text{ij}} ;} \) where Yij is support for democracy for individual i country j, β0j is the country-level intercept, X1ij Protestant dummy for individual i in country j, X2j is percent Protestant in country j, Since we control for the effect of Protestant identification on support for democracy as Protestantism becomes more dominant, the slope of the Protestant identification (β1j) variable is defined by the equation: β1j = γ10 + γ11 × X2j + δ1j. In alternative models, we also included the “no denomination” dummy, so that the baseline is “all other identifiers”, which did not lead to substantive changes in the results.

  11. In fact, a number of predominantly Orthodox countries are also characterized by restricted religious freedoms and by high levels of regulation of religious activity.

  12. The multilevel model for attitudes towards democracy is \( {\text{Y}}_{\text{ij}} = \beta_{{0{\text{j}}}} + \beta_{{ 1 {\text{j}}}} \times {\text{X}}_{{ 1 {\text{ij}}}} + \beta_{{2{\text{j}}}} \times {\text{X2}}_{\text{j}} + \beta_{{3{\text{j}}}} \times {\text{X3}}_{\text{j}} \sum\nolimits_{q = 4}^{p} {\beta {\text{qj}} \times {\text{X}}_{\text{qij}} + \varepsilon_{\text{ij}} ;} \) where Yij is support for democracy for individual i country j, β0j is the country-level intercept, X1ij Orthodox dummy for individual i in country j, X2j is percent Orthodox in country j, X3j is religious freedom index value for country j. Since we are interested in the level of support of Orthodox identifiers conditional on the level of religious freedoms in countries as percent orthodox increases, the slope of Orthodox identification β1j is random and is defined by the equation: β1j = γ10 + γ11 × X2j + γ12 × X3j + γ13 × X2j × X3j + δ1j.

References

  • Aaron, S. J. (2009). Emulating Azariah: Evangelicals and social change in the Dangs. In D. H. Lumsdaine (Ed.), Evangelical christianity and democracy in Asia (pp. 83–131). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, N. R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, R. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, M. R., & Brehm, J. (1995). American ambivalence toward abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 1055–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, M. R., & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies? American Journal of Political Science, 92(2), 345–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, M. R., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices. Easy Answers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. (2004). Does God matter, and if so, whose God? Religion and democratization. Democratization, 11(4), 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnea, M. F., & Schwartz, S. H. (1998). Values and voting. Political Psychology, 19(1), 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J., & McCleary, R. M. (2003a). Religion and economic growth across countries. American Sociological Review, 68(5), 760–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J., & McCleary, R. M. (2003b). International determinants of religiosity. NBER Working Paper No. w10147.

  • Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beit-Hallahmi, B., & Argyle, M. (1997). The psychology of religious behavior. Belief, and experience. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Nun Bloom, P., Zemach, M., & Arian, A. (2011). Religiosity and democratic performance evaluation. Democratization, 18(1), 25–51.

  • Bollen, K. A., & Jackman, R.W. (1985). Economic and noneconomic determinants of political democracy in the 1960s. Research in Political Sociology, 1(1), 27–48.

  • Bratton, M. (2003). Briefing: Islam, democracy and public opinion in Africa. African Affairs, 102(408), 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, M., & Mattes, R. (2001). Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental? British Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 447–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, S. (1997). Middle East exceptionalism: Myth or reality? In D. Potter, D. Goldblatt, M. Kiloh, & P. Lewis (Eds.), Democratization (pp. 321–344). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burris, C. T., & Tarpley, W. R. (1998). Religion as being: Preliminary validation of the Immanence Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(1), 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canetti-Nisim, D. (2004). The effect of religiosity on endorsement of democratic values: The mediating influence of authoritarianism. Political Behavior, 26(4), 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaibong, H. (2004). The ironies of Confucianism. Journal of Democracy, 15(3), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P., & Halman, L. (2003). The values of volunteering: Cross-cultural perspectives. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers.

  • Djupe, P. A., & Gilbert, C. G. (2006). The resourceful believer: Generating civic skills in church. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 116–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlauf, S. N., Kourtellos, A., & Tan, C. M. (2005). How robust are the linkages between religiosity and economic growth? Tufts University Discussion Paper Series.

  • Eisenstein, M. A. (2006). Rethinking the relationship between religion and political tolerance in the US. Political Behavior, 28(4), 327–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahlbusch, E., Lochman, M., Jan, B., William, G., Barret, D. B., & Mbiti, J. (2005). The encyclopedia of Christianity. Winona Lake, IN: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S. (1995). Answering survey questions: The measurement and meaning of public opinion. In M. Lodge & K. M. McGraw (Eds.), Political judgment: Structure and process (pp. 249–271). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity. Political Psychology, 24(1), 41–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. R. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 268–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, S. (2009). Ethnicity, civil society, and the church: The politics of evangelical Christianity in northeast India. In D. H. Lumsdaine (Ed.), Evangelical Christianity and democracy in Asia (pp. 131–155). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filali-Ansary, A. (1999). Muslims and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C. (1991). Eschewing obfuscation? Campaigns and the perception of U.S. Senate candidates. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1193–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Avon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L. (1992). The political consequences of intolerance: cultural conformity and political freedom. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 338–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, P. (2008). Evangelical Christianity and democracy in Africa: A response. In T. O. Ranger (Ed.), Evangelical Christianity and democracy in Africa (pp. 225–230). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. P. (1993). The impact of Churches on political behavior: An empirical study. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinnells, J. R. (1997). A new handbook of living religions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunsberger, B. (1995). Religion and prejudice: the role of religious fundamentalism, quest and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 51(2), 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, T. G. (1992). Political Christianity: A contextual analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 692–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, T. G., & Chandler, M. A. (1996). Communalism, associationalism, and the politics of lifestyle. Review of Religious Research, 38(2), 142–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (2002). Religion and politics in comparative perspective: The one the few, and the many. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpov, V. (2002). Tolerance in the United States and Poland. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedourie, E. (1994). Democracy and Arab political culture. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellstedt, L. A., Green, J. C., Guth, J. L., & Smidt, C. E. (1997). Is there a culture war? Religion and the 1996 election. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 28–31. DC: Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, S. (1989). Religious schema and values. International Journal of Psychology, 24(2), 137–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 915–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G. C. (1997). Religion, political behavior in the United States: The impact of beliefs, affiliations, commitment from 1980 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(2), 288–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leege, D. C. (1988). Catholics and the civic order: parish participation, politics, and civic participation. Review of Politics, 50(4), 704–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M. (1981). Political man: The social basis of politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsdaine, D. H. (2009). Evangelical Christianity and democracy in Asia. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manza, J., & Brooks, C. (1997). The religious factor in U.S. presidential elections, 1960–1992. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 38–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, C. (2005). Orthodox Christianity, civil society, and Russian democracy. Demokratizatsiya, 13(3), 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, P. B. (2004). Hinduism and self-rule. Journal of Democracy, 15(3), 108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K., Tope, D., & Price, A. M. (2008). Religion and support for democracy: A cross-national examination. Sociological Spectrum, 28(5), 625–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, T. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes towards the involvement of religious leaders in politics: A multilevel analysis of 55 societies. World Values Research, 2(1), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, E. N., & Seligson, M. A. (1994). Civic culture and democracy: The question of causal relationships. The American Political Science Review, 88(3), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Philpott, D. (2004). The Catholic wave. Journal of Democracy, 15(2), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radu, M. (1998). The burden of Eastern Orthodoxy. Orbis, 42(2), 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranger, T. O. (2008). Evangelical Christianity and Democracy in Africa. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roccas, S., & Schwartz, S. S. (1997). Church-state relations and the associations of religiosity with values: A study of Catholics in six countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 31, 356–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1969). Value systems and religion. Review of Religious Research, 11(1), 2–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosema, M. (2007). Low turnout: Threat to democracy or blessing in disguise? Consequences of citizen’s varying tendencies to vote. Electoral Studies, 26(3), 612–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, T. J. (2005). Group attachment and the reduction of value-driven ambivalence. Political Psychology, 26(6), 905–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 721–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social structure and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogeneity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication, 21(3), 315–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnell, F. (1993). The foundation of abortion attitudes: The role of values and value conflict. In M. L. Coggin (Ed.), Understanding the new politics of abortion. Newbury Park: Sage.

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25). New York: Academic Press.

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(1), 88–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 465–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, T. S. (2004). The Bible and the ballot box: Evangelicals and democracy in the “Global South”. SAIS Review, 24(2), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., Fletcher, J. F., Russell, P. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1996). The clash of rights: Liberty, equality, and legitimacy in a pluralist democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen, M. R., & Brewer, P. R. (2004). The not-so-ambivalent public: Policy attitudes in the political culture of ambivalence. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, non-attitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 93–129). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen, M. R., & Jones, B. (2001). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 218–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessler, M. (2002). Do Islamic orientations influence attitudes toward democracy in the Arab world? Evidence from Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Algeria. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43(3–5), 229–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Bias and equivalence: Cross-cultural perspectives. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 143–155). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  • Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 779–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, K. D. (2003). Religion and politics in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald, K. D., Owen, D. E., & Hill, S. S. (1988). Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 531–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald, K. D., Owen, D. E., & Hill, S. S. (1990). Political cohesion in churches. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, K. D., & Smidt, C. E. (1993). Measurement strategies in the study of religion and politics. In D. C. Leege & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics (pp. 26–52). New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weightman, S. (1997). Hinduism. In J. R. Hinnels (Ed.), A new handbook of living religions (pp. 191–255). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widgery, A. G. (1936). Living religions and modern thought. New York: Round Table Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. R., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors for their insightful readings and constructive suggestions. All remaining errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel

    Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom

  2. Department of Sociology, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gizem Arikan

Authors
  1. Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gizem Arikan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom.

Appendix

Appendix

See Appendix Tables 3, 4.

Table 3 Summary statistics by religious affiliation and country
Full size table
Table 4 Key summary statistics by country
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ben-Nun Bloom, P., Arikan, G. A Two-edged Sword: The Differential Effect of Religious Belief and Religious Social Context on Attitudes towards Democracy. Polit Behav 34, 249–276 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9157-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9157-x

Keywords

search

Navigation