Shalom H. Schwartz National Research University—Higher School of Economics, Moscow and
description
Transcript of Shalom H. Schwartz National Research University—Higher School of Economics, Moscow and
Does religion affect people’s basic values? Comparing Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Moslems, Jews and religiously
unaffiliated across 33 countries
Shalom H. SchwartzNational Research University—Higher School of
Economics, Moscow andThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem
October 17, 2012
Questions• Religion as a cause: Does people’s religion affect
what they consider the most important guiding principles in their lives?
• A telephoto snapshot: How do the basic values of adherents of Western monotheistic religions differ?
• Alternative causes: What else besides religion might account for these value differences?
• Solving the mystery: What value differences are attributable to religion?
Data Used• European Social Survey, 2002-2010, 5 rounds • Representative national samples 33 countries
– Face-to-face interviews– Age 15-102 years– Who responded to at least 19/21 value items– Who said belong to a religion or denomination
classifiable as one of the following or reported do not have a religion:
Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox JewishProtestant Muslim No religion
33 ESS Countries in Study
Russia
Countries by Historically Dominant ReligionRoman CatholicismAustria BelgiumCroatiaCzech RepublicFranceHungaryIrelandItalyLithuaniaLuxembourgPolandPortugalSloveniaSlovakiaSpainSwitzerland
Protestantism Eastern OrthodoxyDenmark BulgariaEstonia CyprusFinland GreeceGermany RomaniaLatvia RussiaNetherlands UkraineNorwaySwedenUnited Kingdom
Judaism IslamIsrael Turkey
Religious Affiliations of Sample• Do you consider yourself as belonging to
(identifying with) any particular religion or denomination? Yes/No
• If yes: Which one? [open ended] No Religion 75,336 Roman Catholics 61,607
Protestants 28,486 Eastern Orthodox 19,911
Moslems 8,125 Jews 5,326
Total N= 198,791
(19333 missing or not classifiable in above categories)
Basic Values Continuum
Measuring Basic Values 21 PVQ style items to tap 10 basic values
Describe a person in terms of his/her important goals “It is important to him/her to have a good time and enjoy
life“(Hedonism)Rate how similar to self: 6pt scale (not at all …… very)Reveals, how important the goal is to respondent
Analyze invariance of values across 6 religious groups with multi-group CFA
Obtained partial scalar invariance after combining related values to form 6 values
Permits comparison of group means Used individually centered mean scores in analyses
r >.9 for correlations of each of 6 values with latent scores across groups (mean r = .96)
Security
Self-DirectionStimulationUniversalism
Benevolence
Hedonism
AchievementPower
ConformityTradition
UNBE SDST
COTRPOAC
HE
SE
Basic Values
Definitions of Values 1GOAL EXEMPLARY ITEMS
It is important to him/her to
Power/Achievement: control
of people & resources, status, success, showing competence
be in charge and tell others what to do
be very successful, impress others
Hedonism: pleasure & sensuous
gratification for oneselfhave a good time and enjoy life
take every opportunity to have fun
Self-direction/Stimulation: independent thought & action, creativity, excitement, challenge
be curious, try to understand everything
look for adventures, have an exciting life
GOAL EXEMPLARY ITEMSIt is important to him/her to
Universalism/Benevolence: appreciation, tolerance, caring for welfare of others & nature
justice and equality
help & care for other people
protect the environment
Conformity/Tradition: restraint of impulses, acceptance of social expectations, customs, traditions
follow rules
avoid upsetting other people
keep family or religious traditions
Security: safety, stability, harmony
of society, relationships & self
avoid anything dangerous to his/her safetyhave a stable government & orderly society
Definitions of Values 2
Secur ConfTrad SDirStim Hedon PowAch UnivBene3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
RCath Prot EOrth
Mslm Jew None
Snapshot: Population Values by Reli-gion
The Snapshot
Hedonism J= NR> P> M> RC> EO
Slf-Dirctn/Stimltn NR> P> J> RC= M> EO
Univrslm/Benvlnc P> RC> NR> J= EO> M
Confrmty/Traditn M= RC> EO> P> J> NR
Security EO> RC> J> NR= P> M
Power/Achievmnt M> J= EO> NR> RC> P
But are the observed differences due to religion?
Distorted Lens?—Not Religion Itself?• Individual differences among religious groups
– Age, education, gender, immigrant status, religiosityAge Education
YearsReligiosity
(.3-7.1 scale)%
Female%
Immigrants
R Catholic 47.6 (18.5) 11.5 (4.3) 4.1 (1.5) 54% 5%
Protestant 51.6 (18.0) 12.8 (3.7) 3.6 (1.6) 57% 6%
E Orthodox 46.6 (18.0) 11.9 (3.5) 3.9 (1.4) 63% 7%
Jews 43.1 (18.7) 13.4 (3.4) 3.3 (1.9) 54% 35%
Moslems 38.4 (16.8) 7.7 (4.6) 5.1 (1.4) 51% 8%
No religion 42.0 (17.1) 12.8 (3.5) 1.7 (1.2) 48% 7%
Need to control these variables
Changes in Order of Religion Groups
Confrmty/Traditn RC= M= EO> P> NR= J
Security EO> RC= J> NR> P> M
Confrmty/Traditn M= RC> EO> P> J> NR
Security EO> RC> J> NR= P> M
No Controls Individual Controls
Slf-Dirctn/Stimltn NR> P> J> RC= M> EOSlf-Dirctn/Stimltn P> NR> RC> M= J> EO
Changes in Order of Religion Groups
Hedonism P= J> NR> RC= M> EOHedonism J= NR> P> M> RC> EO
Univrslm/Benvlnc P> RC> NR> J= EO= MUnivrslm/Benvlnc P> RC> NR> J= EO> M
Power/Achievmnt M> J= EO> NR> RC> PPower/Achievmnt M> EO= J> NR> RC> P
No Controls Individual Controls
Overall, order of religion differences changes little.
What about strength of effects? reduced or increased?
Changes in Strength of Religion EffectsControlling age, education, gender, immigrant status,
religiosity, reduces variance religion group explains
Age explains mean 6.5% variance, more in all but PowAch,
Religion still explains more variance than education, gender, religiosity, or immigrant status
Controls Secur ConfTrad SDirStim Hedon UnivBene PowAch
None 2.4% 6.3.% 3.3% 3.0% 4.8% 6.5%
Individual characteristics 2.1% 0.8% 2.7% 1.2% 1.1% 4.8%
Distorted Lens?—Country Not Religion?• Country differences confounded with religion
– Economic, security, historical, political factors– Majority vs. minority religion in country
• Example: Finland vs. Russia (Protestant vs. E Orthodox)
All differences (except COTR) p<.001But due to what? How disentangle country & religion?
Secur ConfTrad SDirStim Hedon UnivBene PowAch
Finland 4.46(.85)
3.95(.78)
3.99(.65)
3.73(.99)
4.75(.53)
3.04(.77)
Russia 4.70(.80)
3.98(.79)
3.63(.73)
3.40(1.08)
4.39(.53)
3.85(.67)
Variance explained 2.1% 0.0% 6.1% 2.5% 10.3% 24.0%
Disentangling Country & Religion
Need to separate variance in values due to religion vs. country differences. How?
Examine religion differences within countriesAll groups present in 22 countries with 10 or more members in sampleAt least 20 members of every group present in 20 countries Exception: Jews ≥10 in 7 countries—interpret with caution
Disentangling Country & Religion: Method
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analyzes religion effects within each country averages across countries, eliminating country effectsenables simultaneous control of individual effectsenables examining interactions between religion &
its status as majority vs. minority in countries
Secur ConfTrad SDirStim Hedon PowAch UnivBene3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
RCath Prot EOrth
Mslm Jew None
Snapshot: Population Values by Religion
Secur ConfTrad SDirStim Hedon PowAch UnivBene3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
RCath Prot EOrth Jew
Moslem None
Changes in Strength of Religion EffectsAdding control of country differences to control of age,
education, gender, immig. status, religiosity
Age & religiosity explain more variance in all valuesReligion explains more variance than immigrant status in all
values, but more than education or gender in only 3/6
Controls Secur ConfTrad SDirStim Hedon UnivBene PowAch
Individualcharacteristics 2.1% 0.8% 2.7% 1.2% 1.1% 4.8%
Country effects 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 1.8%
Changes in Religion Differences Due to Controls
Hedonism J= NR> RC> EO= P> M
Slf-Dirctn/Stimltn NR> J= P> RC= EO> M
Univrslm/Benvlnc P= NR> M= RC> EO= J
Confrmty/Traditn M> P= EO= RC> NR> J
Security EO> J= M= RC= P> NR
Power/Achievmnt J> M= EO> RC= P= NR
Univrslm/Benvlnc P> RC> NR> J= EO> M
Power/Achievmnt M> J= EO> NR> RC> P
Hedonism J= NR> P> M> RC> EO
Slf-Dirctn/Stimltn NR> P> J> RC= M> EO
Confrmty/Traditn M= RC> EO> P> J> NR
Security EO> RC> J> NR= P> M
Group Differences Due to Religion
Hedonism J= NR> RC> EO= P> M
Slf-Dirctn/Stimltn NR> J= P> RC= EO> M
Univrslm/Benvlnc P= NR> M= RC> EO= J
Confrmty/Traditn M> P= EO= RC> NR> J
Security EO> J= M= RC= P> NR
Power/Achievmnt J> M= EO> RC= P= NR
Interactions with Majority Status
Hedonism J= NR> RC> EO= P> - M -
Slf-Dirctn/Stimltn NR> J= - P> RC= EO> M
Univrslm/Benvlnc P= - NR> M= RC> - EO=- J
Confrmty/Traditn M> - P= EO= RC> NR> J
Security EO> J= M= RC= + P> NR
Power/Achievmnt J> M= EO> - RC= - P= NR
+ higher where this religion is traditional majority- lower where this religion is traditional majority
ConclusionsData from representative samples in 33 countries enable
1st attempt to discern effects of religion on values
Snapshot of existing differences is misleading: Reflects– Personal characteristics of religious group members– Country characteristics entwined with religion
Controls reveal many changes in relative value priorities– Order of religious groups changes most for RC & M – Values of M most grounded in anxiety & self-protection– NR = P most concern for others vs. own interests – NR findings suggests personal values of openness & growth
cause rejection of religion
Conclusions 2Religion accounts for very little variance in individual values
– ignoring confounds 2 to 6.5% (ave. 4.4%)—second to age (ave. 8.5%)
– eliminating confounds .2 to 1.8% (ave .6%)—less than age, religiosity, similar to gender & education; most in POAC
Viewing religion per se as major cause of national differences in psychological variables probably wrong– Studies confound religion with country characteristics – Using country characteristics (e.g. HDI) to predict explains country
mean differences but does not eliminate confounds from psychological variables—requires within-country analysis
Limitations– Only Western monotheistic religions– Only Europe, Turkey, Israel– 5 Religions are each heterogeneous
Thank YouFeedback: Shalom.Schwartz @ HUJI.ac.il
Correcting the Lens: Controlling Effects ofAge, Education, Gender, Immigrant Status, Religiosity
Secur ConfTrad SDirStim Hedon PowAch UnivBene3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
RCath Prot EOrth Mslm
Jew None
Interactions of Religion with Traditional Majority Religion Status
Italic indicates a significant cross-level interaction with whether the religion is the traditional majority religion in countries+ higher where this religion is traditional majority - lower where this religion is traditional majority
RCath Prot EOrth Mslm Jew NoneSecur 4.55+ 4.511 4.59 4.56 4.556 4.476
ConfTrad 4.105 4.118 4.117 3.945 4.264- 3.986
SDirStim 3.757 3.779 3.746 3.797- 3.625 3.864
Hedon 3.698 3.672- 3.68 3.793 3.489- 3.728
PowAch 3.46- 3.428 3.521- 3.669 3.526 3.421
UnivBene 4.508- 4.561- 4.459- 4.432 4.514 4.553