Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Congregations of a Feather? Exploring Homophily in a Network of Religious Congregations

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Review of Religious Research

Abstract

Background

Homophily, the tendency for relationships to be more common among actors who share similarities, has been observed in social network studies of individuals and organizations. Homophily can encourage close, supportive relationships but limit exposure to diversity. Homophily may have important implications for religious congregations, but research has been limited due to few social network data collections on congregations.

Purpose

This research note uses a new data collection from an inter-congregational network of religious congregations in eight counties encompassing and surrounding a major metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. Its goal is to identify sources of homophily between congregations as well as types of congregations whose immediate networks, which include the congregations to which a congregation has direct relational ties, differ in levels of homophily.

Methods

Quadratic assignment procedure correlations are used to identify sources of homophily, and both fractional logistic and negative binomial regression models are used to examine the extent to which congregational characteristics predict levels of homophily.

Results

Three key sources of homophily include sharing the same religious tradition and family, sharing the same racial composition, and having a smaller geographical distance between congregations. Congregations’ religious family, racial composition, community setting, and the extent to which attenders are younger and newer matter for predicting levels of homophily. The results have implications for: LDS and Church of Christ congregations; multiracial congregations; declining denominationalism; rural congregations.

Conclusions

and Implications

Congregations of a feather do, in fact, flock together. The results inform a variety of practical implications for congregations. Because of the time constraints experienced by many ministers, denominational events might provide some of the most accessible opportunities to build relationships with other congregations. Multiracial congregations often serve as bridges connecting congregations of different racial compositions. Distinctive and centralized religious groups, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, may also effectively encourage relationships across congregations of different racial compositions. Homophily may also impact the extent to which congregations learn about innovations from other congregations and the extent to which collaborations with other congregations are effective.

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

Notes

  1. The mailing list was “based on a database of congregations purchased from InfoGroup” (McClure 2020: 9); all faith traditions were eligible to participate in the study (McClure 2020: 3).

  2. Congregations where less than 80% of regular attenders are the same race are considered multiracial (see Emerson and Kim 2003: 217).

  3. This category includes religious families from which fewer than ten congregations participated in the study (Adventist, Congregationalist, Eastern Orthodox, European Free-Church, Independent Fundamentalist, Jewish, Liberal, Lutheran, Muslim, and Spiritualist), as well as congregations with an unclear family.

  4. Four congregations with other racial compositions (Hispanic/Latino, Asian, etc.) were excluded from analyses because of undue influence on the regression results.

  5. When statistically significant at p < 0.05, curvilinear associations with the outcomes are reported.

  6. A supplemental analysis sought to examine the extent to which congregational characteristics predicted whether or not congregations had alters that participated. Analyses examined a variety of bivariate relationships, but only one, which involved the main minister’s tenure at the congregation, was significant at p < 0.05; the percentages of congregations that do not have alters who participated in the study, by the main minister’s tenure at the congregation, are 8.6% for under five years, 1.2% for five to nine years, 6.1% for 10–19 years, and 13.1% for 20 or more years.

  7. In other words, this analysis can more adequately gauge the homophily of a congregation where 90% of its alters participated than a congregation where 30% of its alters participated. An additional supplemental analysis sought to examine how the percentage of participating alters varies by congregational characteristics. The following characteristics correspond with congregations where, on average, at least 70% of their alters participated in the study (leading to more complete data on their similarity to or difference from alters): Roman Catholic and other (not Protestant or Roman Catholic) traditions; Anglican, Latter-day Saint, and Roman Catholic families; multisite; average weekly attendance of 500 or more; budget of more than $1,000,000. The following characteristics correspond with congregations where, on average, about 55% or less of their alters participated in the study (leading to more incomplete data on their similarity to or difference from alters): no denominational affiliation; Black Protestant tradition; Holiness, Pentecostal, and Restorationist families; African American racial composition; certificate or bachelor-level theological education; no budget. These analyses are not presented but are available upon request.

  8. This variable has curvilinear associations with the outcomes. This variable is centered at its mean.

  9. The proportion of alters that participated in the study has an inverse cubic relationship with the proportion of alters with a different religious family and/or tradition. The proportion of alters with a different religious family and/or tradition decreases from having only 10% of alters participate to having about 37% participate, the proportion increases from having 37% of alters participate to having 87% participate, and then the proportion decreases as more that 87% of alters participate.

  10. Supplementary analyses examined the difference in the proportion of alters with a different racial composition between African American and multiracial congregations through a model identical to the one presented in Table 3 except that African American racial composition, not non-Hispanic white composition, was the reference category. Multiracial congregations have a significantly higher proportion of alters with a different racial composition than African American congregations (b = 2.563; p < 0.001).

  11. However, higher proportions are not unexpected; since so few congregations in the analyses (9.4%) are multiracial, it is not surprising that a higher proportion of multiracial congregations’ alters are not multiracial. Additional analyses examined the composition of alters for each multiracial congregation (N = 37). Of these multiracial congregations, eight (21.6%) had non-Hispanic white, African American, and multiracial alters. Four (10.8%) had non-Hispanic white and African American alters, seven (18.9%) had non-Hispanic white and multiracial alters, and one (2.7%) had African American and multiracial alters. Eleven multiracial congregations (29.7%) had only non-Hispanic white alters, four (10.8%) had only African American alters, one (2.7%) had only multiracial alters, and one (2.7%) had missing data on the racial composition of its alters. Of the multiracial congregations in the analyses, 54.1% had alters of diverse racial compositions, but 43.2% had alters of a single racial composition. These additional analyses suggest that most multiracial congregations in this study are bridging between alters of differing racial compositions, although a significant percentage of multiracial congregations are not.

  12. There is not a statistically significant relationship between the proportion of alters that participated in the study and the proportion of alters with differing racial compositions.

  13. Because recent research indicates meaningful diversity in faith practices as well as political and social views among predominantly African American congregations (Shelton and Cobb 2017), bivariate ANOVAs tested whether there are significant differences in the outcomes among the three religious families from which this study includes at least five predominantly African American congregations (Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal). African American congregations from these traditions did not differ in the percentage of alters with a differing religious family and/or tradition (F = 1.61; d.f. = 68; n.s.), in the percentage of alters with a differing racial composition (F = 1.14; d.f. = 68; n.s.), or in the average distance from alters (F = 2.97; d.f. = 68; n.s.).

  14. There is also an inverse quadratic relationship between the proportion of alters that participated in the study and the average distance from alters, with congregations for whom 58% of their alters participated having the maximum average distance.

  15. The bivariate ANOVA between the proportion of alters with a different religious family and/or tradition and religious tradition is not statistically significant (F = 1.70; d.f. = 4; p = 0.149). In comparison, the bivariate ANOVA between the proportion of alters with a different religious family and/or tradition and religious family is statistically significant (F = 3.72; d.f. = 19; p < 0.001).

  16. For the average Evangelical Protestant congregation from outside the Restorationist family, 45.2% of its alters have a different religious family and/or tradition (SD = 36.9%). Compared to LDS and Church of Christ congregations, the proportion of alters with a different religious family and/or tradition is significantly higher for non-Restorationist Evangelical Protestant congregations (t = 5.33; d.f. = 222; p < 0.001).

  17. The wards in this study are located in Census tracts whose populations are, on average, 71% non-Hispanic white and 19% African American. However, there is significant variation among the Census tracts in which they are located. In these Census tracts, the percentage of the population that is non-Hispanic white ranges from 5 to 89% (SD = 29.1%), and the percentage of the population that is African American ranges from 2 to 89% (SD = 29.6%).

  18. Among the wards in the study, 64% are predominately non-Hispanic white, 9% are predominantly African American, and 27% are multiracial.

References

  • Akinyemi, Oluwaseun, Bronwyn Harris, and Mary Kawonga. 2019. Innovation Diffusion: How Homogeneous Networks Influence the Uptake of Community-based Injectable Contraceptives. BMC Public Health 19: 1520–1531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ammerman, Nancy T. 2005. Pillars of Faith: American Congregations and Their Partners. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atouba, Yannick C., and Michelle Shumate. 2015. International Nonprofit Collaboration: Examining the Role of Homophily. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44 (3): 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Richard. 2014. The Integration of Theology and Psychology within the Church of Christ Tradition: Psychotherapy and Positive Psychology as Case Studies. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 33 (4): 344–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, Stephen P., Martin G. Everett, and Jeffrey C. Johnson. 2018. Analyzing Social Networks, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Jackson W. 2006. God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. Scott., Lala Carr Steelman, Lynn M. Mulkey, and Casey Borch. 2005. When the Rubber Meets the Road: Effects of Urban and Regional Residence on Principle and Implementation Measures of Racial Tolerance. Social Science Research 34: 408–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaves, Mark, and Shawna L. Anderson. 2014. Changing American Congregations: Findings from the Third Wave of the National Congregations Study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 53 (4): 676–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaves, Mark, Shawna L. Anderson, and Alison Eagle. 2014. National Congregations Study. Cumulative data file and codebook. Durham, NC: Duke University, Department of Sociology [producer]. University Park, PA: The Association of Religion Data Archives [distributor].

  • Clauset, Aaron, M.E.J. Newman, and Cristopher Moore. 2004. Finding Community Structure in Very Large Networks. Physical Review E 70 (6): 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, Nick, Elisa Bellotti, Gemma Edwards, Martin G. Everett, Johan Koskinen, and Mark Tranmer. 2015. Social Network Analysis for Ego-Nets. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung, Curtiss Paul, Michael O. Emerson, George Yancey, and Karen Chai Kim. 2003. United by Faith: The Multiracial Congregation as an Answer to the Problem of Race. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Michael O., and Karen Chai Kim. 2003. Multiracial Congregations: An Analysis of Their Development and a Typology. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (2): 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Michael O., and Christian Smith. 2000. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Micheal O., and George Yancey. 2008. African Americans in Interracial Congregations: An Analysis of Demographics, Social Networks, and Social Attitudes. Review of Religious Research 49 (3): 301–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everton, Sean F. 2018. Networks and Religion: Ties that Bind, Loose, Build-up, and Tear Down. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flynt, Wayne. 1998. Alabama Baptists: Southern Baptists in the Heart of Dixie. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, Brad R. 2016. Network Ties and Organizational Action: Explaining Variation in Social Service Provision Patterns. Management and Organizational Studies 3: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geverdt, Douglas E. 2015. Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates Program (EDGE): Locale Boundaries User’s Manual. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gondal, Neha. 2015. Inequality Preservation Through Uneven Diffusion of Cultural Materials across Stratified Groups. Social Forces 93 (3): 1109–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grammich, Clifford, Kirk Hadaway, Richard Houseal, Dale E. Jones, Alexei Krindatch, Richie Stanley, and Richard H. Taylor. 2012. 2010 U.S. Religion Census: Religious Congregations & Membership Study. Kansas City, MO: Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies [producer]. University Park, PA: The Association of Religion Data Archives [distributor].

  • Granovetter, Mark. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, Richard T. 1996. Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iannaccone, Laurence. 1994. Why Strict Churches are Strong. American Journal of Sociology. 99 (5): 1118–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossinets, Gueorgi, and Duncan J. Watts. 2009. Origins of Homophily in an Evolving Social Network. American Journal of Sociology 115 (2): 405–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, Neal, Christopher G. Ellison, Benjamin A. Shaw, John P. Marcum, and Jason D. Boardman. 2001. Church-Based Social Support and Religious Coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40 (4): 637–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, Neal, and Keith M. Wulff. 2005. Church-Based Social Ties, A Sense of Belonging in a Congregation, and Physical Health Status. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 15 (1): 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Sun Kyong, Heewon Kim, and Cameron W. Piercy. 2019. The Role of Status Differentials and Homophily in the Formation of Social Support Networks of a Voluntary Organization. Communication Research 46 (2): 208–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, Daniel T., Domenico Parisi, Steven Michael Grice, and Michael Taquino. 2007a. Municipal Underbounding: Annexation and Racial Exclusion in Small Southern Towns. Rural Sociology 72 (1): 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, Daniel T., Domenico Parisi, Steven Michael Grice, and Michael C. Taquino. 2007b. National Estimates of Racial Segregation in Rural and Small-Town America. Demography 44 (3): 563–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipka, Michael. 2015. The Most and Least Racially Diverse U.S. Religious Groups. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved January 6, 2021 (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and-least-racially-diverse-u-s-religious-groups/).

  • Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marler, Penny Long, D. Bruce Roberts, Janet Maykus, James Bowers, Larry Dill, Brenda K. Harewood, Richard Hester, Sheila Kirton-Robbins, Marianne LaBarre, Lis Van Harten, and Kelli Walker-Jones. 2013. So Much Better: How Thousands of Pastors Help Each Other Thrive. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClure, Jennifer M. 2020. Connected and Fragmented: Introducing a Social Network Study of Religious Congregations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 16 (4): 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton, J. Gordon. 2009. Melton’s Encyclopedia of American Religions, 8th ed. Detroit, MI: Gale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papke, Leslie E., and Jeffrey M. Wooldridge. 1996. Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics 11: 619–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prell, Christina. 2012. Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert D., and David E. Campbell. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramalho, Emeralda A., Joaquim J. S. Ramalho, and Pedro D. Henriques. 2010. Fractional Regression Models for Second Stage DEA Efficiency Analyses. Journal of Productivity Analysis 34: 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, Michael, Charlynn Burd, Kelly Holder, and Alison Fields. 2016. Defining Rural at the U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, Daniel, and Tyler Bowles. 2010. The Economics of Geographical Ward Boundaries in the LDS Church. Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 87: 317–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotolo, Thomas, and J. Miller McPherson. 2001. The System of Occupations: Modeling Occupations in Sociodemographic Space. Social Forces 79 (3): 1095–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, Markus H., and Laura Upenieks. 2016. Trans-Congregational Triadic Closure: Churchgoers’ Networks within and beyond the Pews. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 55 (3): 597–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheitle, Christopher P., and Amy Adamczyk. 2009. It Takes Two: The Interplay of Individual and Group Theology on Social Embeddedness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48 (1): 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, John. 2013. Social Network Analysis, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, Jason E., and Ryon J. Cobb. 2017. Black Reltrad: Measuring Religious Diversity and Commonality Among African Americans. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 56 (4): 737–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Christian. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Jeffrey A., Miller McPherson, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 2014. Social Distance in the United States: Sex, Race, Religion, Age, and Education Homophily among Confidants, 1985 to 2004. American Sociological Review 79 (3): 432–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Jeffrey A., James Moody, and Jonathan H. Morgan. 2017. Network Sampling Coverage II: The Effect of Non-random Missing Data on Network Measurement. Social Networks 48: 78–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, Rodney, and Roger Finke. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art. Social Forces 79 (1): 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullins, D. Paul. 2004. An Organizational Classification of Protestant Denominations. Review of Religious Research 45 (3): 278–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, Nathan R., Emily J. Blevins, and Jacqueline Yi. 2020. A Social Network Analysis of Friendship and Spiritual Support in a Religious Congregation. American Journal of Community Psychology 65: 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuch, Steven A. 1987. Urbanism, Region, and Tolerance Revisited: The Case of Racial Prejudice. American Sociological Review 52: 504–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, R. Stephen. 1994. The Place of the Congregation in the Contemporary American Religious Configuration. In American Congregations, vol. 2, ed. J.P. Wind and J.W. Lewis, 54–99. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Woolever, Cynthia, and Deborah Bruce. 2012. Leadership That Fits Your Church: What Kind of Pastor for What Kind of Congregation. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuthnow, Robert. 1993. Christianity in the 21st Century: Reflections on the Challenges Ahead. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Diane Felmlee, Nathaniel Porter, Jennifer Rahn, Jonathan Fleming, Theresa Davidson, Erica Dollhopf, Cameron Thomas, Kevin Flannelly, and anonymous reviewers for their help and advice. This project is possible thanks to a Faculty Development Grant from Samford University and a Lilly Endowment grant awarded to Samford University’s Center for Congregational Resources (#2014 0494-000).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Samford University, 800 Lakeshore Drive, Birmingham, Alabama, 35229, USA

    Jennifer M. McClure

Authors
  1. Jennifer M. McClure
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer M. McClure.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McClure, J.M. Congregations of a Feather? Exploring Homophily in a Network of Religious Congregations. Rev Relig Res 63, 559–582 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-021-00449-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-021-00449-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation