The Influence of Religious–Political Sophistication on U.S. Public Opinion

Original Paper

Abstract

Scholarly accounts of elite–mass communication often suggest that political sophistication is a necessary condition for adopting the attitudes of partisan elites. Some have also suggested that political knowledge promotes religious–political issue constraint among religious identifiers. This paper contributes to the political sophistication literature by piloting and testing a new measure, religious–political sophistication (RPS), assessing knowledge of church teaching on particular political issues. Using original measures launched on the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, I show that for evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics, RPS (in conjunction with frequent church attendance) depresses support for abortion rights and same-sex marriage. Moreover, I argue that assessing RPS this way is not fatally contaminated by unsophisticated respondents interpolating that their clergy must share their political positions. Results suggest religion-and-politics scholars should adopt RPS measures to gain a greater understanding of the unique sources of political communication upon which religious identifiers draw.

Keywords

Religion and politics American politics Public opinion Sophistication Evangelical Protestants Roman Catholics 

References

  1. Cadge, W., Girouard, J., Olson, L. R., & Lylerohr, M. (2012). Uncertainty in clergy’s perspective on homosexuality: A research note. Review of Religious Research, 54(3), 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calfano, B. R. (2009). Choosing constituent cues: Reference group influence on clergy political speech. Social Science Quarterly, 90(1), 88–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calfano, B. R. (2010). A decision theory of clergy political behavior. The Social Science Journal, 47(4), 836–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calfano, B. R., Oldmixon, E. A., & Grey, M. (2014). Strategically prophetic priests: An analysis of competing principal influence on clergy political action. Review of Religious Research, 56(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, A. P., Converse, P. E., Miller, D. E., & Stokes, Warren E. (1960). The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choirat, C., Honaker, J., Imai, K., King, G., Lau, O. (2016). Zelig: Everyone’s Statistical Software. Version 5.0-12. http://zeligproject.org/
  9. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  10. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1997). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Djupe, P., & Calfano, B. (2013). God talk: Experimenting with the religious causes of public opinion. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Djupe, P. A., & Gilbert, Christopher P. (2002). The political voice of clergy. Journal of Politics, 64, 596–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Djupe, P. A., & Gilbert, C. P. (2009). The political influence of churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Djupe, P. A., & Olson, L. R. (2010). Diffusion of environmental concerns in congregations across U.S. states. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 10(3), 270–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  16. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  17. Friesen, A., & Wagner, M. W. (2012). Beyond the three ‘B’s’: How American Christians approach faith and politics. Politics and Religion, 5(2), 224–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guth, J. L. (2001). Reflections on the status of research on clergy in politics. In S. E. S. Crawford & L. R. Olson (Eds.), Christian clergy in American politics (pp. 30–46). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Guth, J. L., Green, J. C., Smidt, C. E., Kellstedt, L. A., & Poloma, M. M. (1997). The bully pulpit: The politics of protestant clergy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  20. Guth, J. L., Jelen, T. G., Kellstedt, L. A., Smidt, C. E., & Wald, K. D. (1988). The politics of religion in America: Issues for investigation. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 357–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative contexts of political behavior: Churches, neighborhoods, and individuals. Journal of Politics, 55(2), 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Hunter, J. D. (1994). Before the shooting begins: Searching for democracy in America’s culture war. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jelen, T. G. (2001). Notes for a theory of clergy as political leaders. In S. E. S. Crawford & L. R. Olson (Eds.), Christian clergy in American politics (pp. 15–29). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Layman, G. C. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002a). Party polarization and party structuring of policy attitudes: A comparison of three NES panel studies. Political Behavior, 24(3), 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002b). Party polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Layman, G. C., & Green, J. C. (2006). Wars and rumours of wars: The contexts of cultural conflict in American political behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Layman, G. C., & Hussey, L. S. (2007). George W. Bush and the Evangelicals: Religious commitment and partisan change among Evangelical Protestants, 1960-2004. In D. E. Campbell (Ed.), A matter of faith: Religion in the 2004 presidential election (pp. 180–198). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lupia, A. S. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform initiatives. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lupia, A. S. (2015). Uninformed: Why people seem to know so little about politics and what we can do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 856–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McTague, J. M., & Layman, G. C. (2009). Religion, parties and voting behavior: A political explanation of religious influence. In C. E. Smidt, L. A. Kellstedt, & J. L. Guth (Eds.), The oxford handbook of religion and American politics (pp. 330–370). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Neiheisel, J. R., & Djupe, P. A. (2008). Intra-organizational constraints on churches’ public witness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(3), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olson, L. R., Djupe, P. A., & Cadge, W. (2011). American mainline protestantsm and deliberation about homosexuality. In D. Rayside & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Faith, politics, and sexual diversity in Canada and the United States (pp. 189–204). Vancover, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  36. Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org
  38. Smidt, C. E., Kellstedt, L. A., & Guth, J. L. (2009). The role of religion in American politics: Explanatory theories and associated analytical and measurement issues. In C. E. Smidt, L. A. Kellstedt, & J. L. Guth (Eds.), The oxford handbook of religion and American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Van Geest, F. (2008). Christian denominational and special interest political action on public policy issues related to sexual orientation. Sociology of Religion, 69(3), 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wald, K. D. (1992). Religious elites and public opinion: The impact of the bishops’ peace pastoral. The Review of Politics, 54(1), 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wald, K. D., Owen, D. E., & Hill, S. S. (1988). Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review, 82(2), 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. West, B. T., Berglund, P., & Heeringa, S. G. (2008). A closer examination of subpopulation analysis of complex-sample survey data. The Stata Journal, 8(4), 520–531.Google Scholar
  44. Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer. http://ggplot2.org
  45. Wilson, J. M. (2007). The changing Catholic voter: Comparing responses to John Kennedy in 1960 and John Kerry in 2004. In D. E. Campbell (Ed.), A matter of faith: Religion in the 2004 presidential eleciton (pp. 163–179). Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institution Press.Google Scholar
  46. Zaller, J. (1985). Pre-testing information items of the 1986 NES pilot survey. Report to the National Election Study Board of Overseers.Google Scholar
  47. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations