Intergenerational transmission of religious capital.pdf

7/28/2019 Intergenerational transmission of religious capital.pdf

1/29

IntergeneratIonal transmIssIon of relIgIous

CapItal. evidc si*

Transmisin inTergeneracional de capiTal religioso

dt e

Pablo braas-Garza [email protected] de Teora e Historia Econmica. GLOBE, Universidad de Granada. Spain

Teresa Garca-Muoz [email protected] de Mtodos Cuantitativos. GLOBE, Universidad de Granada. Spain

shoshana neuMan [email protected] of Economics. Bar-Ilan University. Israel

absTracTTh x tt t f u t f t t th ff wth fwk. Th yt t ut fut f ty wh t uut v ft f ut. Th tb u b - uvy tht w utin 1998 in Spain. In addition to information on the religious afliation of the respondent and his parents, it hast t tw f th vu u f: huh tt y. italso includes information on the mothers and fathers church attendance when the respondent was a child, w th t tt v t th f 12. s- bkut vb. The core ndings are: (i) parental religious inputs signicantly affect individualsreligiosity; (ii) interestingly, the route of intergenerational transmission is from mother to daughter andfrom father to son; and (iii) current mass participation of respondents is more affected by parental- thanby w hh tt.

Keywords

Catholic, Church Attendance, Intergenerational transmission, Prayer, Production.

* During the time we were working on this paper we were unable to get the new dataset (ISSP-2008). Wew w f tht th w wv w th wy but t w b t t t t. i ft thCentro de Investigaciones Sociolgicas (CIS) did not offered it until late 2010. We apologize for any incon -venience. As the Editor indicated is a basic and necessary empirical exercise to compare both waves (1998y 2008) in order to improve our knowledge of this phenomena. Now, we have started to perform this analysis.

revisTa inTernacionalde socioloGa (ris)Vol.69, n 3, Septiembre-Diciembre, 649-677, 2011

ISSN: 0034-9712eISSN: 1988-429X

DOI:10.3989/ris.2010.06.28


2/29

650 PABLO BRAAS-GARZA, TERESA GARCA-MUOZ y SHOSHANA NEUMAN

resuMenEn este estudio se examina la transmisin inter-generacional de capital religioso de padres a hijos, bajo un

qu u ut t v ft u. lbase de datos utilizada est basada en una encuesta realizada en Espaa en 1998. Se dispone deinformacin sobre la aliacin religiosa del individuo y sus padres, la asistencia a misa y la oracin delindividuo (actualmente) y la asistencia a la iglesia de la madre y el padre y del propio individuo cuandoeste era nio (a los 12 aos). Encontramos que los inputs t ft -nicativa a la religiosidad individual, pero la va de transmisin inter-generacional es de madre a hija yde padre a hijo. Sorprendentemente, la participacin actual en actividades religiosas est ms afectadapor las caractersticas religiosas parentales que por la propia actividad religiosa durante la infancia.

Palabras claveAsistencia a la Iglesia, Catlico, Oracin, Produccin, Transmisin Intergeneracional.

MoTivaTion1

Vt utu fft t v h th yb b f ff - ut. r t t-ters to economic phenomena such as educational attainments (Fan, 2008), marriageand inter-faith marriage (Bisin et al., 2004), fertility (Neuman, 2007; Braas-Garza andNeuman, 2007); as well as attitudes which affect economic and social performance, suchas attitudes in response to incentives (Braas-Garza et al., 2010; Garca-Muoz, 2010)

Th x tt t f u t f -

ttv f sh cth. it xt vu by th uth(Braas-Garza and Neuman, 2004) that used the same sample to analyze religiositypatterns (expressed by church attendance and prayer) of Spaniards, within an economicfwk2.

Th b f th tuy tht th uut f vu ut tt t hh wh h wth h t u tvt his exposed to religious practice, such as mass attendance. The mother and father arepassing on religious knowledge and attitudes to their children (Hoge et al., 1982; Clarkand Worthington, 1987; Ozorak, 1989; Thomson et al., 1992; Hayes and Pittelkow,1993; Shy, 2007; Bar-El et al., 2010). The parents religious behaviours are factors of

ut th f bu th h u t. Th tvis the parents practice, the more religious the person will be when he grows up. Thisvtt f th t th ff u t f th b b

1 Pablo Braas and Tere Garca acknowledge the nancial support from the MCI (SEJ2007-62081/ECON),Junta de Andaluca-Excelencia (P07.SEJ.02547) and Instituto de la Mujer (2007 I+D+I/031).

2 Following the pioneering model of religiosity of Azzi and Ehrenberg (1975) and numerous subsequentpapers such as: Long and Settle, 1977; Ulbrich and Myles, 1993; Neuman 1986; Iannaccone, 1990. A com -prehensive review of the literature is presented in Iannaccone, 1998.

ris, VOL.69. N 3, SEPTIEMBRE-DICIEMBRE, 649-677 , 2011. ISSN: 0034-9712.DOI: 10.3989/ris.2010.02.28


3/29


4/29


reliGious denoMinaTionof resPondenTsand ParenTs

ou tuy f th t f u t f t t h tt t cth huh wh th t th tw t hv th cth t. Th f hu v t-t ut tt b tht f fft u ut th vu u t.

ehty th t f th t u 5 dene themselves as Catho-lic. One percent belongs to other religions and the rest 16% declare that they have noreligion. This distribution reects the share of Catholics in the Spanish population. Accor-ding to data from the Spanish Bureau of Statistics, close to 90% of the population areCatholic, about 1.5% has other religious afliations and around 8.5% claim to have no

religion. These gures have been fairly stable since 1990 (Braas-Garza and Neuman,2004).An examination of the parents religious afliation of Catholic individuals is presented

tb 16.

Tb 1.Parents Religious Denomination

Catholic Spaniards, 1998.

Father

cth -cth Tt

Mother Catholic 1916 (93.1 %) 106 (5.2 %) 2022 (98.3 %)non-Catholic 14 (0.7 %) 21 (1.0 %) 35 (1.7 %)

Total 1930 (93.8%) 127 (6.2%) n=2057

Notes: - non-Catholics include: other religions; no religion; atheists; did not have a mother/father at the agef 12; t kw; t w

As is evident from table 1, the great majority (93.1%) of Catholic respondents grew up inhouseholds were both the father and the mother were Catholic. In 1.0% of the householdthe two parents were non-Catholic and in 5.9% of the cases there was inter-marriage of a

5 A total of 2057 out of 2463 subjects who answered this question. Twenty ve individuals did not answerth qut.

6 The data are derived from Question #50: Are you Catholic? ; Question #24: When you were a child,did your mother dene herself as Catholic? ; and Question #25: When you were a child did your father denehimself as Catholic? .



5/29

INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF `RELIGIOUS CAPITAL 653

Catholic person with a non-Catholic spouse. In most of these 120 cases the non-Catholicspouse was the father. It is interesting that 120 individuals who lived in households with

inter-marriage converted to Catholicism. On the other hand, our sample includes 270individuals who were raised in homogenous Catholic families and they do not denethv cth y7. Our analysis will be restricted to the 1916 householdswhere both parents are catholic (and so is the respondent).

ProducTionof reliGiosiTy: forMal fraMeworKand MeasureMenT

fwk

Men and women devote time inputs to time intensive religious activities (such aschurch attendance) as an investment in their own religiosity and also in order tox th k t u t h vt th h ut tt u tttu vu t th xt t.8 Th u-mulation of religious capital during childhood will result in a more religious adult (asreected in devoting more time to activities such as mass attendance and prayer). Ithas been extensively documented that religious (and ethnic) traits are usually adopted y ftv y f hh tht fy th y u-cial role in this socialization process (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman,1973, 1981; Clarkand Worthington, 1987; Cornwall, 1988; Ozorak, 1989; Thomson et al., 1992; Hayes

and Pittelkow, 1993; Bisin and Verdier, 2000, 2001; Shy, 2007; Bar-El et al., 2010).Gender differences in the socialization process have also been recognized (e.g., Beit-Hallahmi, 1997; Braas-Garza and Neuman, 2004).

Formally, lets denote by Rith t ut ty v by F(.) th

ut fut f th vu ty. Th ft f ut : iutf t vt by th th t u tvty wh th t w h(lm

i) and time devoted by the father to religious practice when the individual was a

child (ldi). Obviously there are more factors of production in the process of producing

the individuals religiosity, such as: The educational system, the social impact of thecommunity and of friends, religiosity level of the spouse (for married individuals)9. a

7 Twelve switched to other religions; 175 do not believe in any religion; 49 are atheists and 34 did notanswer the question on their religious afliation. Converting out of the Catholic faith is therefore more pro -nounced than converting in. See also Table 5.

8 Even when this is not done with the specic intention of affecting the kids religiosity, this is most probablythe outcome - children that are exposed to religious practice of their parents, accumulate religious specichuman capital. This accumulation is intensied if the child actively participates in religious practice (goes tochurch with parents).

9 See, Johnson (1980); Grossbard-Shechtman and Neuman (1986); Erickson (1992); and Bisin andVerdier (2000).

ris, VOL. 69. N 3 , SEPTIEMBRE-DICIEMBRE, 649-677, 2011. ISSN: 0034-9712. DOI: 10.3989/ris.2010.02.28


6/29


w fu t tt t f u t u t ttt w w tt lm

i ld

i. a tt w b btw th tw

.

Ri=F(lm

i, ld

i) (1)

B ttu tt t fcultural values and on gender roles and gender differences (cited above), the followingttb hyth b tt:

(a) Positive marginal products of the inputs of the mother and the father i.e., thevtv f bth lm

i ld

iare positive (R

i/lm

i>0 and R

i/ld

i>0): religious atti-

tudes and practise are transmitted from parents to children, we therefore expect a

signicant positive effect of the mothers and the fathers religious practice (lmi ldi, respectively) on the respondents religious practice (R

i).

(b) The effect of lmi

will be stronger in the case of female respondents (i.e.R

i/lm

i>R

i/ld

i) while the opposite will be true in the case of males (R

i/lm

i


7/29


in the transmission of religious traits. We have no a priori assumptions on the secondderivatives or on the cross derivatives of the two factors of productions. While in

a standard production function maximization of prot implies decreasing marginalproducts of factors of production, in the case of production of religiosity we mightobserve increasing marginal products (f>0). Th vtv ht beither negative (indicating substitution between factors of production, lm

i/ld

i0). There is also the option of indiffe-

rence between the two factors of production (lmi/ld

i=0 when factors do not affect

each others).(f) Erosion of the effect of exposure to parental religious practice, as time passes byand the respondent gets older: Behavioral economists (e.g Kahneman et al., 1997) tht x fft f but th fft f x wth

time. If this is true also for religious experience and for preferences for religiosity, thenw xt t bv t fft f t ut yu t. Thfft w b wk t v 10.(g) A negative relationship between the probability to convert out of the Catholic faithand (lm

i, ld

i): Our statistical analysis is restricted to the sample of Catholic respon-

dents (i.e. R>0), with two Catholic parents (lmi>0, ld

i>0). This restriction was imposed

in order to have a homogenous sample in terms of religious rules of conduct. Howe -ver, it is possible to extend the sample and include also non-Catholic respondentswho grew up in Catholic families, in order to test the hypothesis that the tendency toleave the Catholic faith (R=0) is also related to parental inputs and is higher if parental

u ut w w.

MeasureMenTofinPuTandouTPuTvariables

Th t ut vb lmi ld

i x u t tht t t

participation of the mother and father when the respondent was 12 years old. For each oftheses variables there is data on a scale of 1 to 9 (1- never attended church services to:9- attended several times a week)11.

Th t th qut tht t t hh ttv ht

10An alternative explanation for an expected negative relationship between age and parental effect (eve-rything else being equal) could be the following: a child tends to simulate and mimic his parents behavior (e.g.mass attendance), as he grows up he updates his preferences/taste that might than deviate from those of hist.

11Based on questions #28, for the mother and question #29, for the father: When you where a child, didyour mother (father) attend mass services at the church?. The options are: Never (1); once a year (2); one ortwo times a year (3); a few times a year (4); once a month (5); two or three times a month (6), almost everyweek (7); every week (8); several times a week (9).



8/29


b ut; w thf t vb wth th b t by bresponses that are close (see Iannaccone, 2003, for justication).

The 9 original options are reduced to the 3 following categories:

(1) lmi/ld

i=1: For original values of: 1 (she/he never attended); 2 (once a year); and 3

(one or two times a year). This category relates to low-practicing Catholic mothers/fathers.(2) lm

i/ld

i=2: For original values of: 4 (attended few times at year); 5 (once a month);

and 6 (two or three times a month). This category includes medium-level practicingCatholic mothers/fathers.

(3) lmi/ld

i=3: For original values of: 7 (attended almost all weeks); 8 (every week);

and 9 (several times a week). This is a category that is composed of intensively-practi-

cing Catholic mothers/fathers.lmi ld

ithf b t L wh L=(1,2,3). l=1, is for the case where the mother

(father) rarely attended church services; l=2 if the mother (father) eventually attended; l=3 if they regularly attended. The pairs (lm

i,ld

i) R2

++represent (mother, father)

combinations of intensity of mass participation during respondents childhood. For exam-ple (3,1) represents a household where the mother regularly attended mass services andth fth y tt.

The dependent variable (R) - level of religiosity of the respondent - is estimated usingtwo dimensions of religiosity, mass participation and prayer habits. Mass tt measured on a scale from 1 to 6 (1- never participates; to 6- participates every week) 12.

Prayeris measured on a scale from 1 to 11 (1- never prays; to 11- prays several timesevery day)13. Th tw t f ty hv fft tv: wh huh tt-dance is a public activity that also has utilitarian/social/network motives, prayer is a pri -vate/intimate activity with a pure religious salvation motive. The costs of the two activities fft: huh tt t u thf h hhttv t.

Th vu fR (either mass participation or prayer) refer to current practice andhu t hv y ut . Th fu tu f vu w b u f y f th utt f t vu.

12 Based on question #50b: How often do you attend mass services at the church? . Has 6 alternativeoptions: Never (1); once a year (2); one or two times a year (3); once a month (4); two or three times a month(5); and, every week (6). Notice that the same question that relates to the mother/father has a somewhat moredetailed characterization composed of 9 categories.

13 Based on question #31: How often do you pray? . The possible answers are: never (1); once a year(2); twice a year (3); few times a year (4); once a month (5); two or three times a month (6); almost every week(7); every week (8); several times a week (9); once a day (10); and several times a day (11).



9/29


descriPTivesTaTisTicsofinPuT (i, d

i) andouTPuT (r) variables

Bf w tu t th ttt y f th th btw t ut the offsprings religiosity, it might be useful to have some descriptive statistics on thet t u tvt.

Tb 2 t tbut f th th fth ttlevels (lm

i, ld

i), where lm

i, ld

iL = (1, 2, 3).

Table 2 indicates that the modal combination is (lmi, ld

i) = (3,3). In more than 41%

of households of origin, both the mother and the father intensively practiced religioustvt.

The other two gures on the diagonal that represent homogenous households, aresignificantly lower: In 11% of households both parents were rarely practicing mass,

(lm i, ldi) = (1,1) and in about 15% of families the parents attended mass occasionally, (lmild

i) = (2,2).

Tb 2.Cross-Tabulation of Mothers and Fathers Religiosity Level Catholic Spaniards, 1998

Fatherld

i=1 ld

i=2 ld

i=3 Total

mth lmi=1 11.2% 0.5% 0.3% 11.9%

lmi=2 8.1% 15.1% 1.6% 24.8%

lmi=3 8.2% 13.7% 41.4% 63.3%

Total 27.6% 29.2% 43.2% 1735

nt: - s f cth wth cth t- lm

i/ ld

i=1 for a Catholic low-practicing mother/father; lm

i/ld

i=2 for a Catholic medium-level practicing mother/

fth; lmi/ld

i=3 for a Catholic intensively practicing mother/father (see page 8 for denition)

The gures above the diagonal represent a more active father ( lmi ld

i). We can therefore summarize that most households

th hu t f t v f u t thgreat majority are intensive practitioners. In non-homogenous families, it appears thatthe mother is the more religiously active person. This is also reected in the gure thatabout two thirds of mothers compared to about 40% of fathers have the largest level, l=3.On the other hand, the percentage of non-religious individuals ( l=1) is more than doublefor men compared to women (28% and 12%, respectively). These gender differences in



10/29


Table3.

Depen

den

tVaria

ble:

Respon

den

tsMa

ssAtten

dancean

dPrayer,

Desc

rip

tive

Statistics

Ca

tho

licSpanis

hWomenan

dMen

,1998

.

mssattee

ube

(total)

%total

%among

woe

%among

e

pye

ube

(total)

%total

%among

woe

%a

mong

e

never(1)

362

18.9

14.5

24.3

never(1)

326

17.0

11.0

2

5.2

onceayear(2)

232

12.1

10.3

14.4

Onceayear(2)

83

4.3

3.1

5.8

1-2timesayear(3)

471

24.6

23.1

26.4

Twiceayear(3)

106

5.5

3.1

8.5

onceamonth(4)

119

6.2

7.4

4.8

fewtimesayear(4)

249

13.0

11.7

1

5.1

2-3times/month(5)

185

9.7

11.7

7.1

onceamonth(5)

66

3.4

3.1

3.9

everyweek(6)

511

26.7

31.9

20.2

2-3timesamonth(6)

130

6.8

7.0

6.5

almosteveryweek(7)

126

6.7

7.8

5.0

everyweek(8)

174

9.3

9.7

8.3

severaltimesaweek(9)

135

7.3

8.1

5.7

Onceaday(10)

383

20.3

26.8

1

1.6

severaltimesaday(11)

109

5.6

8.0

2.8

samplesize

1880

1048

832

samplesize

1887

1049

838

e

3.5

6

3.8

8

3.1

7

me

6.0

5

6.9

8

4

.90

ei

3

4

3

mei

6

8

4

oe

6

6

3

moe

10

10

1

note:-Theseiuescthoiiiviuswithtwocthoiets



11/29


religiosity are documented in multiple studies (e.g. Beit-Hallahmi, 1997; Braas-Garzaand Neuman, 2004; Braas-Garza, 2004).

Table 3 relates to the respondents (kids) current religious activities. Unlike most tu ty tht u y huh tt t f -giosity, we have information on two types of activities: church attendance and prayer.The rst is a public activity, for which social and utilitarian motives are relevant, while thesecond is conducted privately at home and reects Azzi Ehrenbergs salvation motive14.

Table 3 presents the distribution and the mean, mode and median of the two outputreligiosity variables. The gures are presented for women and men separately, in ordert hk f ff.

In our representative sample of Catholic Spaniards, about one quarter is practicingintensively: Twenty seven percent attend church services every week and 26% pray at

least one time every day. At the other end, close to 20% never went to church and neverprayed. The mean and median are close to the middle point of the distribution (mean=3.56and median=3 for Mass Attendance; mean=6.05 and median=6 for Prayer). Interestingly,the mode belongs to the extreme maximum values (mode=6 for Mass Attendance andmode=10 for Prayer). However, the distribution is multi modal and there are other valueswth fqu.

It appears (from a comparison of table 2 and table 3) that the respondents are lessreligious than their parents, indicating secularization of the Spanish population15.

a f th tw u tht w u th :Thirty two percent of women compared to 20% of men go to church every week and only

14% of women compared to 24% of men never go to church. The differences are even u t th y tvty: Th h f w wh y t t yis almost three times larger compared to the respective share of men (35% and 14%, res-pectively). At the other extreme, only 11% of women and 25% of men never pray. Thesegender differences are also reected in the mean, median and mode of the distributions(the respective means are 6.98 and 4.90; the median is 8 for women and 4 for men;the respective modes are 10 and 1). These major gender differences in prayer habitsreect gender differences in religious and spiritual attitudes and values. The narrowing of ff tt v ht b x by th fft tuf th u t: t h utt tv w. Th huh v twkand as a social club. Men who value networking more than women, attend services in t t t bu t.

In order to get a more visual presentation of the distributions, gures 1 and 2 displayfrequency distribution histograms for Mass Attendance (gure 1) and for Prayer (gure 2)f th tw .

14 See Braas-Garza and Neuman (2004) for a fuller discussion.15 However, this conclusion should be treated with some caution because the measurement scales are

fft th tht t t t ttv.



12/29


The diagrams add a visual reassurance that women are more religious than men,in particular in terms of prayer that has a more private/intimate nature and is the betterreection of pure religiosity.

inTerGeneraTional TransMissionof reliGious caPiTal

We are now acquainted with the religious performance of the respondents and theirt y t x th tth btw th tw t test our hypotheses (see page 6).

First, a descriptive statistical analysis will be presented and then regression analysisw b y t v t t ut t t f - bku vb tht ht fft t u bhvu hu thf b . Th t vb t thfOrdered Logit will be used for estimation. The regression coefcients reect marginalutvty f ut b u t tt u hyth.

Figure 1.Distribution of Relative Frequencies of Mass Atten-

dance Levels Spanish Women and Men, 1998

nt: - Th u cth t wh w u cth f.- Samples include 1036 women and 819 men.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1 2 3 4 5 6

men

women



13/29


descriPTiveanalysisofParenTaleffecTonMassaTTendanceandPrayer

Table 4 presents descriptive summary statistics that relates parental inputs (measured bylevels of church attendance during respondents childhood) to the individuals religiousactivity, measured by church attendance and by prayer. Due to the negligible samplesizes of households with a more religiously active father (see table 2) we refer only tohuh wh bth t hv ty v wh th th active. Parental inputs are denoted by pairs of (lm

i,ld

i) and individuals religiosity levels

are measured using several central measures: the mean of the various categories (1-6for church attendance and 1-11 for prayer), the modal category and the median. A distinc-

t btw th tw .As is evident from table 4 there is a pronounced positive relationship between paren-tal religious inputs (lm

i,ld

i) and individuals religiosity levels. The individuals intensity of

church attendance and of prayer is clearly increasing with parental inputs (in terms oftheir church attendance during the individuals childhood). Interestingly, in householdswhere the two parents rarely practiced, ie ( lm

i,ld

i) = (1,1), the modal value for the kids

(both women and men) is also the lowest possible: (1)- never attends mass; and (1)-never prays. At the other extreme, when the two parents attended mass intensively(lm

i, ld

i) = (3,3), the kids follow and the modal value (for women and for men) is 6 for

church attendance (every week) and 10 for prayer (every day).

Figure 2Distribution of Relative Frequencies of Prayer Habits

Spanish Women and Men, 1998

n: - Th u cth t wh w u cth f.- Samples include 1036 women and 819 men.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

men

women



14/29


Table4.

Parental

Effecton

Respon

den

tsRe

ligios

ity,

Measure

dby

Mass

Atten

dancean

dby

Prayer

Ca

tho

licSpanis

hWomenan

dMen

,1998

mssattee

petiuts:

(lm

i,ld

i)

(1,1

)

(2,2

)

(3,3

)

(2,1

)

(3,1

)

(3,2)

geeofse

Women

e

woe

e

Women

e

woe

e

woe

e

woe

e

Samplesize

123

67

137

121

395

315

79

53

76

63

127

109

me

2.6

2

1.9

4

3.5

0

3.0

2

4.5

6

3.9

4

3.3

2

2.2

8

3.8

2

2.6

7

3.9

7

3.1

8

moe

1

1

3

3

6

6

3

1

6

1

6

3

mei

2

2

3

3

5

4

3

2

4

2

4

3

pye

petiuts:

(lm

i,ld

i)

(1,1

)

(2,2

)

(3,3

)

(2,1

)

(3,1

)

(3,2

)

geeofse

W

omen

e

woe

e

woe

e

woe

e

woe

e

woe

e

Samplesize

122

71

137

123

390

311

82

58

78

64

127

108

me

5.5

6

3.4

8

5.7

8

4.2

8

7.9

0

6.1

0

6.3

2

4.2

1

7.2

7

4.1

4

7.2

5

4.6

7

moe

1

1

4

1

10

10

10

1

10

1

10

4

mei

6

1

5

4

9

7

7

3

9

3

8

4

Notes:-RespondentsMassAttend

anceisbasedonquestion#50b:How

oftendoyouattendmassservicesatth

echurch?Has6alternativeoptions:never(1);

onceayear(2);oneortwotimesay

ear(3);onceamonth(4);twoorthreetimesamonth(5);and,everyweek(6)

-RespondentsPrayerisbasedonq

uestion#31:Howoftendoyoupray?Thepossibleanswersare:never(1);on

ceayear(2);twiceayear(3);fewtime

sayear

(4);onceamonth(5);twoorthreetimesamonth(6);almosteveryweek(7);

everyweek(8);severaltimesaweek(9);onceaday(10);andseveraltimesa

day(11)



15/29


Women seem to be affected mainly the mother and mens religious behaviour seemsto be more closely related to the fathers religious activity (for instance: moving from (3,1)

to (3,2) or from (2,1) to (2,2) where only the fathers mass attendance increases, leadst vy h th f th w tt uh change in the case of mens mass attendance. Womens prayer habits even show a smalldecrease).

ou ttt y f th th btw t u ut -pondents religiosity is restricted to Catholic individuals with two Catholic parents. Howe-v t tt ftv t x th th btw tinputs and the absence of Catholic religious belief i.e., the probability to convert out.

Table 5.

Respondents Religious Afliation and Parental Religious InputsSpanish Women and Men, 1998.

Parental inputs (lmi,ld

i)

rtafliation

(1,1) (2,2) (3,3)

Women m Women m Women m

cth 137 (78.3) 80 ( 48.5) 140 (84.8) 124 (93.9) 397 (94.7) 323 (88.3)

oth 5 (2.9) 2 (1.2) 2 (1.2) 1 (0.8) 4 (1.0) 4 (1.1)

n 33 (18.9) 83 (50.3) 23 (13.9) 7 (5.3) 18 (4.3) 39 (10.7)

Tt 175 165 165 132 419 366

nt: - Th u t wth cth t- n u tht. m vu xu

As is obvious from table 5, the probability to leave the Catholic faith is also related toparental inputs. A negligible number of individuals in our sample (18 out of a sample of1422=1.3%) switched to other religions. A larger percentage (203 out of 1422=14%), t hv . Th h f wh hv ub to the share of women (19.4% and 9.7%, respectively), another indication that woment t b u th . Th h f vu wh vt ut y

t t t v f ty. Th tv th u fmen. The effect of (lm

i,ld

i) on the probability to leave the Catholic faith is not linear and

is gender specic.If the two parents were rarely practicing less than 80% of their daughters and less

than half (48%) of their sons will stay Catholic. About 20% of daughters and over half(!)f w hv . i th tht th tw t w t y- the percentages with no religion drop to 14% for women and 5% (down from 50.3%!)for men. They further drop to 4% for women and, surprisingly, rise to 11% for men whow u huh wh th tw t w t tvy.



16/29


pt u ut thf b f th ty t ty cthand furthermore, to the level of religiosity of those who are Catholic.

This descriptive presentation in Table 4 on the relationship between parental inputand Catholic respondents religiosity suffers from two methodological limitations: rst,th ut wht ffu h t th wh y f ub order to draw conclusions. Second, it does not control for other variables that might beresponsible for the respondents level of religiosity (e.g., education, age, marital status,number of children). Regression analysis solves these two problems.

ordered loGiTreGressionanalysis

Table 6 presents religiosity equations estimated using Ordered Logit regression analy -sis. The dependent variable (R) is the religiosity level of the respondent, proxied either byparticipation in mass services or by prayer habits (using all possible values of these twovariables). The independent variables include: Our core independent variables that arethe mothers and the fathers religious inputs (using two dummy variables for each , lm

i/

ldi=2 or 3, with the minimal level of 1 as the reference group). Interaction terms of identi-

v f huh tt f th tw t hv b tu ttt th ut tht th fft f th t ut t y tv but reinforced in homogenous families where (lm

i, ld

i)16. chuh tt f th vu

wh h w 12 y u t t ut th fft f t ut

tht t bby t wth th vb17.ath t f t vb f - h

bku vb: t ttu; ub f h; ub f y f h;age group; population size in place of residence; type of place of residence (within themetropolitan area of a big city or not, typically for small cities around Madrid); region ofresidence (the so-called Autonomas in Spanish).

Th tw ttv t vb t f w t hh(Mass participation: never participates to every week - 6 categories; Prayer: neverprays to several times a day 11 categories). An Ordered Logit econometric model thattt th btw t vb t f t

vb thf u f th tt f ty qut18 .

16 But have been dropped due to insignicance of all interaction terms.17 However, parents who attend mass are not necessarily accompanied by their child. In order to arrive at

net effects of the parents explicit inputs, the childs church activity should be included as an additional regres-sor; otherwise we will get biased estimates that include (implicitly) the contribution of the kids own activity.Indeed, when this variable has been excluded we got larger coefcients for parental inputs. However, theb ut hv t h.

18 Two other options are: The two-outcome logistic model, with an arbitrary dichotomization and Ordinary



17/29


table 6 presents the results of the Ordered Logit regressions, whereby an underlyingscore is estimated as a linear function of the independent variables and a set of cut

points. The probability of observing outcome i, thatcorrespond to the estimated linearfunction, plus a random error, is within the range of the cut points estimated for theoutcome

Pr (outcomej

= i) = Pr (ki- 1


18/29


Table6.

Ordere

dLog

itRelig

iosi

tyFunct

ions,

by

Gen

der

Ca

tho

licSpanis

hWomenan

dMen

,1998

Women

me

deeetieeetvibes

mss

pye

mss

pye

Themothersinput(massattendan

celevel):

i=2

0.9

05(3.4

3)

0.

482(1.8

4)

0.3

72(1.0

6)

0.4

83(1.3

4)

i=

3

1.3

32(4.9

5)

0.9

03(3.3

7)

0.4

03(1.1

6)

0.4

65(1.3

1)

Thefathersinput(massattendanc

elevel):i=

2

-0.0

08(0.0

4)

-0.2

04(1.0

1)

0.7

59(3.0

6)

0.2

27(0.9

6)

i=

3

0.3

76(1.7

2)

-0.1

17(0.5

5)

1.1

43(4.2

4)

0.6

90(2.6

6)

resoetssstteet

theeof12:

=2

0.4

72(1.4

8)

0.5

63(1.7

6)

0.1

73(0.5

5)

0.7

53(2.4

4)

l=3

0.8

86(2.9

6)

1.0

48(3.5

4)

0.7

16(2.4

4)

1.1

14(3.8

3)

Socioeconomic/geographicalback

groundvariables:

Yesof

shooi

0.0

37(2.3

1)

0.0

30(1.9

3)

0.0

42(2.4

3)

0.0

41(2.3

1)

Age:31-to-45

0.6

34(3.1

0)

0.2

85(1.4

4)

0.4

63(1.7

8)

0.1

79(0.6

9)

Age:46-to-60

1.4

29(6.1

8)

1.3

32(5.9

0)

0.3

25(1.0

7)

0.5

72(1.9

0)

Age:ove

r60

2.1

10(8.4

9)

2.1

28(8.8

0)

1.4

01(4.4

6)

1.2

20(3.9

4)

mits

ttus:ie

-0.0

19(0.1

2)

0.0

73(0.4

9)

0.6

34(2.7

9)

0.2

82(1.2

6)

nube

ofhie

-0.0

52(1.1

7)

0.0

16(0.3

7)

-0

.063(1.1

1)

-0.1

25(2.3

1)

Citypop

ulation:10,0

00orless

0.5

00(2.9

8)

0.2

39(1.5

2)

0.1

04(0.5

6)

0.0

82(0.4

6)

lotio

:etooit

0.1

30(0.6

7)

0.1

87(0.9

6)

0.5

76(2.4

8)

0.5

52(2.3

3)

Samplesize

790

790

585

585

pseuo

R2

0.1

141

0.0

751

0.1

085

0.0

560

notes:

-Z-sttistisietheses

-Regiondummyvariables(16dumm

ieswithCantabriaasthereferencegrou

p)havealsobeenincluded(notreportedtosavespace).Allcoefcientsareinsig

nicant,

exceptthecoefcientofCastillalaM

anchainthemalemassparticipationeq

uationwhichis1.3

15(2.0

3)



19/29


(c) Parental mass participation has a more pronounced effect on the respondentsmass attendance than on his prayer habits, as evidenced by the larger and more

signicant coefcients in the mass participation religiosity equation. Moreover, asmentioned above, the effects on prayer are signicant (at a 0.05 signicance level)only if the (same gender) parent was practicing intensively (l=3).This is true for thetw . Th ut ut u th hyth.(d) Women tend to be more inuenced by (same gender) parental inputs comparedto men, as reected by the larger coefcients oflm

i th f qut

to the coefcients ofldiin the parallel male equations. This nding reects womens

t tt f ty ut u futh hyth(e) We did not nd magnied effects of homogenous parental inputs (lm

i=ld

i): i

to test hypothesis (e) we added interaction terms of identical parental inputs. None

of them was signicant, which means that there is no additional interactive effect ofhomogenous inputs, beyond the effects of each of the inputs separately. Experimen-ting with other interactions of the inputs of the two parents, resulted in insignicantcoefcients for all interaction terms, indicating that the effects of the two parentsare independent. Neither substitution, nor complimentarity of the parental inputs isevidenced. These results are in line with the ndings reported under hypotheses(a) and (b) that only the parent of the same gender has a signicant effect on thet v f ty.(f) The effect of childhood religious experience on individuals preferences for reli-ty t wth t: itt t f t ut th

u f th t20

were all insignicant (and were therefore excluded fromthe regressions reported in table 6), indicating that the time distance between the reli-u x u hh th ut u bhvu vt.In this sense, religious experience might be different from other experiences with agood/service/event. This indicates that the religious experience is more profound andy t th vu t fft v th vu f t.(g) Parental religious inputs have a positive signicant effect on the individuals ten-dency to stay Catholic, or alternatively: a negative effect on the probability to convertout. In order to test hypothesis (g) we extended the sample to all respondents whogrew up in Catholic households. Both the cross-tabulation descriptive statistics (table5) and a logistic regression (dependent variable is equal to 1 if stayed Catholic and0 if not, results not reported)21 hw tv th btw t

measurement errors, as the responses to the questions on parental mass attendance are retrospective andt t t f x. nvth th b ut w .

20 Separate dummy variables of age groups are also included, in addition to the interaction variables, inorder to control for other pure effects of age, see below a discussion of effects of socio-economic variables.

21Alternatively, it is possible to run the religiosity equations on the extended sample and add the option ofR=0to the dependent variable (to mass attendance and to prayer). However, this will result in a less homog-u w t y tt btw R=0 R>0.



20/29


v f ty th bbty f th vu t cth. Th th f bth w . Th fft v u f - by

who grew up in households where the two parents were rarely practicing, have ahigher probability to leave the Catholic faith than to remain Catholic (probabilities of51.5% and 48.5%, respectively).

Effects of other variables

Respondents exposure to mass services during childhood: Th vb u f th t vb t v t t fft f th th thfathers inputs. It relates to the respondents mass attendance (l=2,3) when he was 12y 22. exu th vb t h th b ut tht t t -

tal inputs (in terms of relative magnitude and of signicance). The various coefcients arewht wh th vb t u u t t tv t wthparental inputs (for instance, in the female sample, the effect oflm

i=2 t-

tion increases from 0.905 to 1.001 and the effect oflmi=3 increases from 1.332 to 1.536.

In the male sample, the effect ofldi=2 on mass participation goes up from 0.759 to 0.802

and the coefcient ofldi=3 increases from 1.143 to 1.272).

The effect of childhood religious exposure is also interesting by itself (in addition toits role to net out the effects of parental inputs): Exposure to mass attendance duringchildhood has a positive signicant effect on the respondents current mass participation,but only if he was intensively exposed to mass services (l=3). Regression coefcients

f l=2 are not signicant in mass participation equations of the two genders. Also, thefft f w xu u th th fft f t tt(a coefcient of 0.886 versus 1.332 in the female sample and respective coefcients of0.716 and 1.143 in the male sample). It appears that the same gender parent serves asa role model and his participation in mass services is more inuencial on future masstt th w xu.

Interestingly, own exposure to mass services has a stronger effect on current prayerhabits than on current mass participation (respective coefcients of 1.048 and 0.886, forl=3 for women; coefcients of 1.114 and 0.716, for l=3, for men). Also, prayer is morefft by w hh x f tt th by wth th tattending mass services. This whole set of ndings indicates that the intimate/privatetvty f y y t t u vt x u hhthan the more social/public activity of mass participation.

22 Based on questions #30: When you were 11-12 years old, how often did you attend mass services at thechurch?. The options are: Never (1); once a year (2); one or two times a year (3); a few times a year (4); once amonth (5); two or three times a month (6), almost every week (7); every week (8); several times a week (9). Thettv t t th t t t tt. Thf h t th t reduced to three categories (l=1, 2, 3), that are identical to the three categories for parental mass attendance.



21/29


The effects of socio-economic and geographical variables (see Appendix that pre-sents average characteristics of the female and male sample): The various background

vb hv th f tt ut th fft f t ut. Theffects have been extensively discussed in Braas-Garza and Neuman (2004)23.

Most pronounced is the effect of advanced age on religious behavior. This reectsbth ht fft fft tht t t th vt tv. a fft uh u th f . mt ttu ub f h t fft w ty. m t t t huh ft thub f k h tv fft y hbt. sh h tvsignicant effect on the intensity of religious behaviour of the two genders 24.

Three socio-geographical variables have also been included: the population size inthe city of residence; its location (whether it is within the metroplitan area of a big city) and

the geographical region. The size of the city was included using several dummy varia-bles that relate to different sizes of city population (10,000 or less; 10,001-to-100,000;100,001-to-1,000,000; over one million inhabitants). The number of dummies was thenreduced to one: 10,000 inhabitants or less with the reference group of more than 10,000,due to insignicant differences between all the rest. As indicated by table 6, women insmall rural cities go to church more often, reecting socializing motives of church atten-dance. They also have a slight tendency to pray more (at a signicance level of 10%).The effects of the small city are not prevalent for men. Men (but not women) are affectedby th tt t f th f - th v wth ttareas of big cities go to church more, reecting social networking motives. They are also

more active in praying. We do not have a reasonable explanation for this nding.In order to control for regional differences, 16 region dummy variables have beenadded (not reported in table 6, Cantabria is the reference group). All region dummies areinsignicant in the womens religiosity regressions, indicating no signicant effect of theregional location. In the male equations, only residents of Castilla la Mancha go to churchsignicantly more than all others (coefcient of 1.376, z=2.11). The size of the coefcient qut v- v t ld

i=3. Here too, this nding is a reection of

social/cultural motives of church attendance: Castilla la Mancha is the most traditional,old-style, rural region of Spain and going to church is integrative component of tradition utu.

23 Note, that Braas-Garza and Neuman (2004) is employing a different sample that includes all respond-ents and not only Catholics with Catholic parents. Also, geographical residence variables have not beenu.Th ut thf t fuy tb.

24 p huh hv b u xty vb. Bth tuout to have insignicant effects. Probably, due to measurement errors and many missing values.



22/29


suMMaryand discussion

Th fut qut f th t h thvu ty. Th b ttt tht fut tt y tht t tt u t t th ff v f v x h u h hh t tt. Th xuserves as an input that helps him to produce his stock of religious capital that is reected h ut huh tt y hbt.

Th y f th tt t f u t f tt th ff t wth tt f fwk f utfut f ty wh t ut v ft f ut. sv t-tb hyth v t.

T tt th hyth w u ttv sh tb f cth.Th t ut th th fth tty f huh tt uth vu ftv y f hh. Th utut th t utreligiosity level as reected by two different dimensions: mass attendance and prayer.Socio-economic background variables, that might affect religiosity, are also considered.Th h v vtv ftu:

- Unlike most empirical papers that proxy the individuals religiosity using churchattendance, we have data on two different dimensions of religiosity, namely, mass atten- y hbt25. Th tw ft f ty hv fft tv comparison of the production processes of the two, adds to our understanding of religious

bhvu tu f th t-t t f u t.- Moreover, in most empirical studies church attendance is a dichotomous variable(yes or no) while we have information on the intensity of church attendance that has sixalternative levels. For prayer we have eleven alternative levels that reect the intensityf y. Th ft t vub b th tt f o ltty qut th vt f but u.

- st ft t t u ut tyf f t ftt f th fft fft f thmother and father on daughters and sons, thus improving our understanding of gender ff th f ttt u vu tttu.

- Information on the respondents own exposure to mass services when he was a child,ftt th tt ut f th t fft t hvut f th t-t t .

25 Adsera (2006) uses the dichotomous variable practicing/non-practicing Catholic, that combines ele-ments of all types of religious practice. However, it is not well dened and provides very limited informationu t t htu tu.



23/29


The main and most interesting ndings are the following:- Th v f t-t t f u t

but only from the same gender parent: the mother has a signicant impact only on thedaughters religiosity, while the father signicantly affects only the sons religious beha-viour. The effects are not linear - in some cases only an intensive practicing mother/father (l=3) has an impact on the individuals religiosity. Parents of the same genderv y u th f bu ftt thvu tk f ty. pt u ut fft tvy th tyt ty cth t vt ut.

- Th th btw t ut th t ut tt t th k btw th f h y hbt.

- py y t t th t w xu t huh v

wh h w h th t th t x f huh tt. Th htindicate that the private/intimate practice of prayer is transmitted mainly through ownx th th v ut f t u t.

- There are no interactions between the effects of the two parents. Moreover, homoge-nous parental inputs (lm

i= ld

i) do not add to the separate effects of the mother and the

father. This also follows from the insignicant effect of the other gender parent on thet.

- Th fft f th x f xu t t tt u thvu hh tt t t by th -t t tt f th x.

- Parental impact is, generally, larger for women. This is another example of the specia-lization of women towards religious tasks. These ndings also comply with theories of thesy f r tht tht w hv tt f ty t .

Religion within the European Union is one of the focal topics on the research agendaof the Union. We believe that the study presented in this paper forms one of the buildingbk f th f h h tht tu w fw v uut f th ut-utu u tt eu.

references

Adser, A. 2006. Marital fertility r s. Population Studies 60(2): 205-221.

Azzi, C. and Ehrenberg, R.G. 1975. Household Allocation of Time and Church Attendance. Journal ofPolitical Economy83(1): 27-56.

Bar-El, R., Garca-Muoz, T., Neuman, S. and Cobol, Y. 2010. The Evolution of Secularization: CulturalTransmisin, Religion ans Fertility Theory, Simulations and Evidence. Mimeo.

Beit-Hallahmi, B. 1997. Biology, Density and Change: Womens Religiosity and Economic Develop-t. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 153: 166-178.



24/29


Bisin, A. and Verdier, T. 2000. Beyond The Melting Pot: Cultural Transmission, Marriage, AndTh evut of eth a ru Tt. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(3):

955-988.Bisin, A. and Verdier, T. 2001. The Economics of Cultural Transmission and the Dynamics of Prefer-

. Journal of Economic Theory97: 298-319.

Bisin, A., Topa G. and Verdier, T. 2004. Religious Intermarriage and Socialization in the United States.Journal of Political Economy 11(3): 615-664.

Braas-Garza, P. 2004. Church Attendance in Spain: Secularization and Gender Differences. Eco-nomics Bulletin 26(1):1-9.

Braas-Garza, P., Garca-Muoz, T. and Neuman, S. 2010. The big carrot: High-stakes incentivesvt.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making23(3): 288-313.

Braas-Garza, P. and Neuman, S. 2004. Analyzing Religiosity within an Economic Framework: Thec f sh cth. Review of Economics of the Household2(1): 5-22.

Braas-Garza, P. and Neuman, S. 2007. Parental Religiosity and Daughters Fertility: The Case ofcth suth eu. Review of Economics of the Household5(3): 305-327.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Feldman, M. 1973. Cultural versus Biological inheritance: Phenotypic Trans- f pt t ch.American Journal of Human Genetics 25: 618-637.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Feldman, M. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A QuantitativeApproach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Clark, C. A. and Worthington, A. 1987. Family Variables Affecting the Transmission of Religious Valuesf pt t at: a rvw. Family Perspective 21: 121.

Cornwall, M. 1988. The Inuence of Three Agents of Religious Socialization. In: Religion and FamilyConnection: Social Science Perspectives, Darwin, L.T. (ed.), Provo, UT: Brigham Young Universityp.

Erickson, J. A. 1992. Adolescent Religious Development and Commitment: A Structural EquationModel of the Role of Family, Peer Group, and Educational Inuences. Journal for the ScienticStudies of Religion 31: 131152.

Fan, C.S. 2008. Religious Participation and Childrens Education: A Social Capital Approach. Journalof Economic Behavior and Organization 65: 303-317.

Garca-Muoz, T. 2010. Incentives in Religious Performance: a Stochastic Dominance Approach.Judgment and Decision Making5(3): 176-181.

Grossbard-Shechtman, S. Amyra and Neuman, S. 1986. Economic Behavior, Marriage and Religios-ty. Journal of Behavioral Economics 15: 71-86.

Hayes, B. C., and Pittelkow, Y. 1993. Religious Belief, Transmission, and the Family: An Australianstuy. Journal of Marriage and the Family55: 755766.



25/29


Heaton, T. 1986. How Does Religion Inuence Fertility? The Case of Mormons. Journal for the Scien-tic Study of Religion 28: 283299.

Hoge, D. R., Petrillo, G. H. and Smith, E. I. 1982. Transmission of Religious and Social Values frompt t T ch. Journal of Marriage and the Family44: 569580.

Iannaccone, L. R. 1990. Religious Practice: A Human Capital Approach. Journal for the ScienticStudy of Religion 29(3): 297-314.

Iannaccone, L. R. 1998. Introduction to the Economics of Religion. Journal of Economic Literature 36:1465-1496.

Iannaccone, L. R. 2003. Looking Backward: A Cross-national Study of Religious Trends. Mimeo.

Johnson, R. A. 1980. Religious Assortative Marriage in the United States. New York, NY: Academicp.

Kahneman, D., Wakker, P.P. and Sarin, R. 1997. Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Util-ty. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 375-405.

Lehrer, E. L. 1996. Religion as a Determinant of Marital Fertility. Journal of Population Economics 9:173-196.

Long, S. H. and Settle, F.R. 1977. Household Allocation of Time and Church Attendance: Some Addi-t ev. Journal of Political Economy85(2): 409-13.

Neuman, S. 1986. Religious Observance within a Human Capital Framework: Theory and Application.Applied Economics 18:11: 1193-202.

Neuman, S. 2007. Is Fertility Indeed Related to Religiosity. Population Studies 61(2): 219-224.

Ozorak, E. W. 1989. Social and Cognitive Inuences on the Development of Religious Beliefs andctt a. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion 28: 448463.

Schoen, R. and Weinick, R.M. 1993. Partner Choice in Marriages and Cohabitations. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family55: 408-414.

Shy, O. 2007. Dynamic Models of Religious Conformity and Conversion: Theory and Calibrations.

European Economic Review51: 1127-1153.

Thomson, E. McLanahan, S. and Curtin, R. B. 1992. Family Structure, Gender, and Parental Socializa-t. Journal of Marriage and the Family54: 368378.

Ulbrich, H. and Myles, W. 1983. Church Attendance, Age, and Belief in the Afterlife: Some Additionalev.Atlantic Economic Journal11(2): 44-51.

Received: 28/06/2010

Accepted: 5/04/2011



26/29


pablo braas-garza is Professor of Economics at Universidad de Granada. His research inter-ests include experimental economics, decision-making and economics of religion. He has published

h h Games & Economic Behavior,Journal of Conict Resolution

, Experimental Economics,Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Journal of Money, Credit and BankingoJournal ofEconomic Psychology.

teresa garCIa muoz is an Associate Professor of Econometrics at Universidad of Granada. Herresearch interests include econometrics, subjective well-being, gender and economics of religion. Sheh ubh h h Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Judgment and Decision Making,International Journal of Social Welfare oApplied Mathematics & Computation.

shoshana neuman is Professor of Economics at Bar-Ilan University (Israel). Her research inter-ests include labour economics, econometrics and economics of religion. She has published a numberof h jou k Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Econometrics, Journal ofEconomic Behavior and Organization, Journal of Human Resources, Economics InquiryoEuropeanEconomic Review.



27/29


appenDIX: s Cciic

As table 1 in the Appendix shows, the respondents are heterogeneous in terms of ageand education, reecting the diversity of the Spanish population. About 25% of bothmen and women fall into each age group: 18-to-30; 31-to-45; 46-to-60 and over 60. Theaverage age of women is 46 (ranging from 18 to over 91, standard deviation of 18). Menhave an almost identical age distribution with an average 45.5, a range of 18-93 and at vto 18.

Th hty o ut th th wo. Th v ub of yof schooling is 10.3 for men and 9.5 for women, with a standard deviation of around 5for both groups. This is also reected in the distribution of the level of formal education 17% women and 13% men have not completed primary school, while 34% women, com-

pared to 41% men, have some academic education (including college, polytechnic anduniversity). The percentages of primary- and secondary-school graduates are similar formen and women (around 25% of the men and women in each group)1.

about two th of wo of th uvy th vnumber of children at home is 1.8, ranging from 0 to 122.

As evidenced in many other countries, women earn less than men. Women and men ou hv tbuto th oy hty o utthan the women. Yet we nd more men than women in the higher monthly income inter-vals: 9.4% men and 6.7% women have monthly incomes between 200 and 500 thousandpesetas. A mere 0.7% men and 0.3% women earn more than 500 thousand pesetas.

The great majority of women (70%) earned less than 100 thousand pesetas comparedto 37% men. This group included respondents who did not participate in the labor force.The majority of men (53%) have a monthly income ranging from 100-to-200 thousandpesetas. The parallel gure for women is 23%.

Th othy fy o tbuto o fo wo . Thmajority of respondents have a household income in the 100-to-200-thousand pesetarange. Less than 4% (2.4% female respondents and 1.6% male respondents) enjoy ahousehold income of over 500 thousand pesetas. Around one quarter are in the under-100- and 200-to-500 thousand peseta range. Comparing the distribution of personalversus family income, shows that women moved up, reecting the fact that a signicantooto th wok t-t o ot .

1 Among 15 European countries, Spain ranked second from last, and Portugal last (at 37.7%) in percen-tage of population (aged 25-to-59) with at least a secondary-school education. Germany ranked rst with81.6%.

2 Lehrer (1996) predicted that spouses with the same religious afliation would have lower divorce ratesand more children than couples with different religious afliations. This hypothesis is not supported by ourdata: while in the great majority of couples (over 95%), both spouses are Catholic, they have quite low fertilityt.



28/29


About one quarter of women and of men live in small rural towns (with a populationof 10,000 inhabitants or less). Around one third of our respondents live in medium-size

cities of 10,001-to-100,000 residents, close to 30% reside in large cities (population of100,001-to-1,000,000) and around 10% have their homes in very large cities of over onemillion inhabitants. Fifteen percent live in metropolitan areas.

The regional distribution reects the population sizes of the 17 Spanish regions: Thelargest are the regions of Andalucia, Catalua, Madrid and Valencia (with 11-to-18 per-cent of population) and the smallest is La Rioja with less than 1% of the population.

appenDIX

table 1.

Sample Characteristics, by GenderSpanish Women and Men, 1998

Vb Women m

Y of hoo 9.518 (5.50) 10.294 (5.36)

Formal education (%)

d ot ot ypy

soy

a

17.46826.83521.39234.304

12.99123.59022.56440.855

Age (years) 46.244 (18.33) 45.526 (18.32)Age groups (years) (%)

18-to-3031-to-4546-to-60Over-60

26.58224.30422.02527.089

25.47026.66723.59024.273

nub of h t ho 1.862 (1.61) 1.836 (1.55)

Monthly personal income (in thousands of pesetas) (%)Less than 100Between 100 and 200Between 200 and 500Over 500

70.00023.0306.6670.303

37.19252.7099.3600.739



29/29


Monthly family income (in thousands of pesetas) (%)Less than 100Between 100 and 200Between 200 and 500Over 500

29.90647.29020.3742.430

23.77650.11624.4761.632

Married (%) 61.139 64.957Residence population (%)

10,000 or less10,001-to-100,000100,001-to-106

over 106

26.58233.79728.60711.012

27.69234.01727.52110.769

Live in metropolitan areas (%) 15.949 14.871

Region (%)Andaluca

a

atu

B

c

ctb

ct l mh

ct l

ctu

V

extu

g

m

mu

nv

Pas Vascol roj

17.3412.911

3.9242.0253.9241.2654.0506.582

15.31611.0122.7846.329

12.1513.1641.7724.6830.759

17.7772.9053.0762.0513.5891.8804.7868.717

12.82011.111

1.8806.837

12.1363.2471.7094.9570.512

Sample size 790 585

not: - Th u ctho vu who w ctho houho.

- nub th t vto.

- The means of Monthly family income are based on smaller samples (535 women and 429 men) due

to missing data and the means of Monthly personal income are based on even smaller samples (330women and 406 men) due to missing values.

Intergenerational transmission of religious capital.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Intergenerational transmission of religious capital.pdf