The Dimensionality of Public Attitudes toward Church-State Establishment Issues

The Dimensionality of Public Attitudes toward Church-State Establishment IssuesAuthor(s): Clyde WilcoxSource: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 169-176Published by: Wiley on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of ReligionStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386796 .

Accessed: 24/09/2013 19:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.11.242.100 on Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:56:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386796?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Research Note

The Dimensionality of Public Attitudes Toward Church-State Establishment Issues*

CLYDE WILCOXt

Although the general public supports the separation of church and state in the abstract, majorities support establishment positions on many concrete issues. Here I use LISREL to investigate the structure of attitudes toward establishment issues. The LISREL analysis suggests a surprising degree of both vertical and horizontal constraint on these issues, probably resulting from religious cues.

Despite the scholarly and political debate on the proper interpretation of the First Amendment to the constitution, relatively little analysis has addressed public opinion toward church-state matters, although mass and elite attitudes toward school prayer have been studied (Elifson and Hadaway 1985; Green and Guth 1989). Tamney and Johnson (1987) examined attitudes of Muncie, Indiana, residents on a number of church-state issues. They reported that Muncie residents generally support separation between church and state, although fundamentalists, supporters of televangelists and the Christian Right, and older white women were more likely to favor government endorsement of Christianity.

Tamney and Johnson's analysis includes five items: religion has no place in government affairs; the government should stay out of religious affairs; the government should provide tuition assistance to parents whose children attend church schools; church schools should comply with regulations set down by government, such as testing the competency of teachers; and public officials have an obligation to be directed by the moral teachings of their church. Although the authors combine four of these items (all except the question on competency testing) into a single scale, their inter-item correlations are fairly low (the av- erage is .18), and the authors do not estimate the reliability of the scale.

Research on public opinion has generally shown that the public is not especially consistent in its opinions. Converse (1964) established this lack of horizontal constraint (i.e., connections between opinions at the same level of generality) in the mass public, and although various later studies have offered revisionist interpretations, political scientists and sociologists generally agree that individual attitudes are not highly correlated in the mass public (Erikson, Luttbeg, and Tedin 1991).

Yet later research has also demonstrated a surprising level of vertical constraint (i.e., connections between abstract principles and concrete issue positions) among the mass public (e.g., Hurwitz and Peffley 1987). In the foreign policy domain, Hurwitz and Peffley reported that "core values ... are important determinants of individual preferences across a wide range of specific policies" (pp. 1113-1114).

Vertical constraint arises from logical connections between abstract values and orientations and concrete issue positions. These connections need not be evident to all, and the individual citizen need not reason through the logic of the connection for her/himself. More likely, political and social elites establish these connections and communicate them to their followers. Yet Converse also suggested that much attitudinal constraint had a social, not a

*The author would like to thank the editor, Ted G. Jelen, Mary Bendyna, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. The data were made available by the Williamsburg Foundation. Mary Bendyna provided invaluable assistance with the data analysis, which was partly funded by a grant from the Georgetown Graduate School. All interpretations are my ownI.

tClyde Wilcox is an associate professor of government at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057.

?) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1993 32 (2): 169-176 169



170 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

logical, source. Various political and social groups endorse packages of issues that may or may not have logical links between abstract and concrete elements. Members of these groups learn to support the issue package of their group through socialization.

Here, I explore the structuring of public attitudes on establishment issues. In the first part, I examine the direction of public attitudes. In the next, I explore horizontal and vertical constraint using latent structural analysis to model measurement error.

THE DATA

The data for his study come from a 1987 national phone survey of 1708 respondents commissioned by the Williamsburg Charter and conducted by the Center for Communi- cation Dynamics. Households were selected through random-digit dialing, and respondents within the household were selected according to a set of rules to assure a representative distribution on age and gender (Hunter 1990).

The survey contains a wide variety of questions on establishment (and free exercise) issues, and is the richest available source of data on public attitudes on church-state affairs. Two abstract items measured general orientations on establishment issues. The first asked respondents whether government should support all religions equally, or not support any religion. The second asked whether the government should take special steps to protect the country's Judeo-Christian heritage, or whether there should be a high wall of separation between church and state.

A number of other items asked about specific establishment issues. Respondents were asked whether it is good for Congress to begin its sessions with a prayer; whether it is good for sporting events at public high schools to begin with a public prayer; whether churches should pay taxes on their property; whether it is acceptable for a city government to put up a manger scene on government property at Christmas and candles for a Jewish religious celebration; whether the government should require that Judeo-Christian values be emphasized in public schools; whether public schools should allow student religious groups to hold voluntary meetings in school classrooms when classes are not in session; whether public schools should set aside a moment of silence each day for students to pray if they want to; and whether public schools should teach evolution, creationism, or both. With the single exception of the latter question, all items were dichotomous.1

PUBLIC ATTITUDES ON ESTABLISHMENT ISSUES

Table 1 presents the distribution of opinion on the general and specific items on establishment issues. The two general orientation items reveal a divided public on establishment principles. Approximately three-fifths favored a "high wall of separation" between church and state, but an equal number indicated that government should help all religions equally, rather than not help religion. This suggests the presence of some ambivalence among the public, and also of measurement error in the form of nonattitudes. Terms like "high wall" have been used frequently enough in schools and newspapers that many people believe that it is part of the language of the Constitution, so a majority favor a high wall of separation. Yet helping everyone equally is part of the American ethic of equal opportunity, so a majority also takes that position. One in five respondents indicated that they supported a high wall of separation, but that the government should help all religions equally.2

1. Questions used to construct the abstract principles and concrete issues scales used in the analysis may be obtained from the author.

2. Some interesting patterns in the responses to these two general questions are addressed in Wilcox, Ferrara, O'Donnell, Bendyna, Geehan, and Taylor (1992).



PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD CHURCH-STATE ISSUES 171

On concrete issues, the public was far more supportive of established links between church and state. Only small minorities took separationist positions on public displays of Christianity, including prayers in Congress and at the start of school sporting events, and manger scenes at Christmas. A large majority also supported allowing a Jewish menorah on city property, although this question was asked immediately after the question on the manger scene, doubtlessly inducing measurement error among those who desire to appear consistent. A similar pattern appears on support for military chaplains, where majorities favor using public funds for Christian and Buddhist chaplains, in part because the Buddhist question directly followed the more general item.

TABLE 1

PUBLIC ATTITUDES ON ESTABLISHMENT ISSUES

Percent taking Separationist Positions

General Orientations

Government Help for Religion 46%

High Wall of Separation 61%

Specific Issues

Prayer in Congress 28%

Prayer in H.S. Sports 34%

Manger Scene on City Land 14%

Jewish Candles on City Land 16%

School Rooms for Religious Meetings 26%

Moment of Silence in Schools 20%

Military Chaplains 7%

Buddhist Chaplains 34%

Gov't Funds for Religious Schools 55%

Gov't Mandate Teaching JC Values 63%

Teaching Evolution Only 12%

Evolution + Creationism 76%

Tax Church Property 54%

Percentage of respondents taking separationist position on each issue.

The public also generally supported religious involvement in schools, including a moment of silence and allowing school property to be used for religious meetings when classes are not in session.3 A majority opposed mandating the teaching of Judeo-Christian values in the schools, although a large majority supported teaching both evolution and creationism in biology classes. Only on two issues did a majority take a separationist position, and both involve the use of public funds. A majority opposed the use of public funds for pri- vate religious schools, and a narrow majority favored taxing church property.

Two conclusions are evident from these data. First, the public is far more supportive of church-state separation in the abstract than on concrete issues.4 In response to the two issues of general orientation, nearly 40% took separationist positions on both items. Yet many of those general separationists supported church-state ties in a variety of specific sit-

3. This issue also relates to the free exercise clause.

4. Such a result is consistent with a long string of studies that show higher support for abstract principles of civil liberties than for their concrete applications. (See Prothro and Grigg 1960; McClosky 1964.)




uations. Second, a number of Americans have weakly held preferences on church-state issues, and are therefore strongly influenced by question wording and ordering.

THE HORIZONTAL STRUCTURING OF ESTABLISHMENT ATTITUDES

Converse and others of the "Michigan School" have suggested that the public is relatively inconsistent in its concrete beliefs. Table 2 contains a matrix of gamma correlations, which are surprisingly robust. Clearly the public perceives some connection among many (though not all) of these issues.

TABLE 2

GAMMA CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ESTABLISHMENT ITEMS

1 2 3 4 5 1.) Prayer in Congress XX XX XX XX XX 2.) Prayer in H. S. Sports .93 XX XX XX XX 3.) Manger Scene on City Land .55 .52 XX XX XX 4.) Jewish Candles on City Land .51 .22 .97 XX XX 5.) School Rooms for Religious Meetings .23 .23 .41 .47 XX 6.) Moment of Silence in Schools .71 .76 .47 .45 .50 7.) Military Chaplains .47 .44 .56 .52 .33 8.) Buddhist Chaplains -.14 -.16 .22 .28 .19 9.) Gov't Funds for Religious Schools .25 .33 .22 .26 .34 10.) Gov't Mandate Teaching JC Values .67 .71 .38 .38 .33 11.) Teaching Evolution Only .68 .72 .49 .56 .50 12.) Tax Church Property .32 .25 .24 .33 .24

6 7 8 9 10 1.) Prayer in Congress XX XX XX XX XX 2.) Prayer in H.S. Sports XX XX XX XX XX 3.) Manger Scene on City Land XX XX XX XX XX 4.) Jewish Candles on City Land XX XX XX XX XX 5.) School Rooms for Religious Meetings XX XX XX XX XX 6.) Moment of Silence in Schools XX XX XX XX XX 7.) Military Chaplains .25 XX XX XX XX 8.) Buddhist Chaplains -.25 1.00 XX XX XX 9.) Gov't Funds for Religious Schools .46 .34 -.04 XX XX 10.) Gov't Mandate Teaching JC Values .71 .13 -.32 .38 XX 11.) Teaching Evolution Only .69 .05 -.33 .49 .70 12.) Tax Church Property .12 .40 -.01 .21 .21

11 High Wail Help Rel 1.) Prayer in Congress XX .44 .25 2.) Prayer in H.S. Sports XX .43 .37 3.) Manger Scene on City Land XX .28 .08 4.) Jewish Candles on City Land XX .26 .13 5.) School Rooms for Religious Meetings XX .17 .03 6.) Moment of Silence in Schools XX .39 .43 7.) Military Chaplains XX .16 .03 8.) Buddhist Chaplains XX -.09 -.21 9.) Gov't Funds for Religious Schools XX .39 .61 10.) Gov't Mandate Teaching JC Values XX .49 .28 11.) Teaching Evolution Only XX .56 .56 12.) Tax Church Property .22 .15

Help Religion .38

Gamma correlations. For all correlations above .05, p ? .05. For all above .10, p ? .01.

Although gamma is commonly used to measure attitude constraint, it is important to remember that this a forgiving correlation coefficient. Consider, for example, the gamma correlation between the two items on the acceptability of public prayer in Congress and at




high school sporting events. This gamma of .93 is equivalent to a Pearson's r correlation of .65; the gamma correlation between support for prayer in Congress and opposition to taxes on churches is .30, while the Pearson's correlation is .15. But these correlations are surprisingly strong, suggesting that the public sees connections between various concrete issues of church-state establishment.

Traditional techniques to determine the dimensionality of these items, such as cluster analysis or factor analysis, are inappropriate for these data. First, substantial measurement error is likely to occur. The dichotomous questions force respondents to choose between two positions when they may prefer an intermediate option, and the lack of filters to eliminate nonattitudes is a major source of measurement error with issues that most respondents have never previously considered.

Moreover, at least some of this error is correlated. Respondents were asked first about a Christian manger scene at Christmas, and then about a Jewish menorah. Clearly at least some respondents who might oppose a menorah would have supported it in this in- stance to avoid appearing to discriminate against Jews. Similarly, the question on Buddhist chaplains was asked immediately after a more general item on chaplains. It is very likely that the measurement error in these latter items is correlated to the responses on the for- mer ones. Yet cluster analysis assumes noncorrelated error terms.

Finally, a few of these items are badly skewed. This is especially true of the question on military chaplains, where more than 90% of respondents supported public funds. The skewed marginals prevented this item from correlating highly with other questions on public displays of Christianity, and allowed it to split off with the strongly correlated question on Buddhist chaplains.

To deal with substantial and correlated measurement error and to accommodate some non-normally distributed items, latent structure analysis is preferable to cluster analysis or factor analysis. Structural models allow researchers to model measurement error, and to stipulate that some of this error is, in fact, correlated. By using polychoric and poly- serial correlations and a weighted least-squares algorithm, non-normally distributed terms can be accommodated in the analysis.

Latent structure analysis provides for confirmatory, not exploratory, factor analysis. The researcher must specify the model, and can test its validity and compare its fit with that of alternate specifications. To determine the dimensionality of these items, I estimated a variety of confirmatory factor analysis models in LISREL 7. Three of these models merit discussion. First is a four-factor model based on the results of the cluster analysis. Second, I estimated a three-factor model, where the first factor focused on public affirmations of Judeo-Christian values outside of the classroom (prayer in Congress and at sporting events, a manger scene and a menorah), the second focused on items that specifically mentioned public funds (taxing churches, funding religious schools, paying for Christian and Buddhist chaplains), and the third on religious socialization (allowing students to hold religious meetings in classrooms, teaching Judeo-Christian values, allowing a moment of silence, teaching evolution). The final model specified a one-factor solution. In each of these models, I posited correlated measurement error between the two contiguous items on the manger scene and the menorah, and between the two items on chaplains.

LISREL allows formal tests of the improvement of fit between various models (Bollen 1990). The original model posited by the cluster analysis had a quite poor fit (Chi-Square = 11,500; Adjusted Goodness of Fit = .82; Root Mean Square Residual = .15). Both the three- factor and one-factor models have significantly better fits.

Both of these models showed some tension from the two items on non-Christian establishment (menorah, Buddhist chaplains). This was especially evident in separate analysis done among evangelical Christians, but less apparent in separate models estimated for Catholics and mainline Christians. For the overall sample, this tension was reduced by al-




lowing the measurement error for the two items to correlate, and by allowing correlated measurement error between the items on teaching Judeo-Christian values and Buddhist chaplains. However, it should be noted that although the goodness of fit for both models was improved by allowing these correlations, they reflect substantive, not methodological effects.5

In the three-factor model, I assigned the item on allowing religious groups to use school property for their meetings to a school factor. However, since public schools must in- cur some maintenance costs from such meetings, this question involves the allocation of public funds. A significant improvement to fit was obtained by letting this item also load on the public funds factor.

TABLE 3

LISREL SOLUTIONS: ONE- AND THREE-FACTOR SOLUTIONS

One-Factor Model Establishment

1.) Prayer in Congress .60 2.) Prayer in H.S. Sports .59 3.) Manger Scene on City Land .38 4.) Jewish Candles on City Land .45 5.) School Rooms for Religious Meetings .40 6.) Moment of Silence in Schools .51 7.) Military Chaplains .18 8.) Buddhist Chaplains -.09 9.) Gov't Funds for Religious Schools .26 10.) Gov't Mandate Teaching JC Values .45 11.) Teaching Evolution Only .51 12.) Tax Church Property .28

Chi-Square = 2540, p < .01. Adjusted Goodness of Fit = .98. Root Mean Square Residual = .04.

Three-Factor Model Public J/C Values Federal $ Schools

1.) Prayer in Congress .61 2.) Prayer in H.S. Sports .60 3.) Manger Scene on City Land .39 4.) Jewish Candles on City Land .46 5.) School Rooms for Religious Meetings .22 .26 6.) Moment of Silence in Schools .54 7.) Military Chaplains .24 8.) Buddhist Chaplains -.11 9.) Gov't Funds for Religious Schools .36 10.) Gov't Mandate Teaching JC Values .49 11.) Teaching Evolution Only .54 12.) Tax Church Property .41

Chi-Square = 2101, p < .01. Adjusted Goodness of Fit = .99. Root Mean Square Residual = .03.

Gamma values - latent independent variables on measure of abstract orientations .42 .27 .71

Standardized weighted least-squares LISREL estimates. All coefficients are statistically significant.

Table 3 shows the standardized coeffficients from one- and three-factor models. The one-factor model is dominated by issues of public displays of Judeo-Christian values and by educational issues. The highest lambda x values (equivalent to factor loadings) are for public prayers, a moment of silence, and teaching creationism, with public displays of the menorah and teaching of Judeo-Christian values in schools close behind. This model has a

5. Allowing correlated measurement error is similar to building an auxiliary factor below the formal model. This insight was supplied by Harold Clarke.




relatively good fit to the data, suggesting that the degree of horizontal constraint is higher than the cluster analysis had revealed.

In the three-factor model, the public displays of religion factor has heaviest loadings by the role of public prayer; the factor that focuses on government finances for religious practice has highest loadings for taxing church property and giving public funds to religious schools. The schools factor has roughly equal loadings for teaching Judeo-Christian values, teaching creationism, and a moment of silence. Attitudes toward allowing school property to be used by student religious groups loaded evenly on the financial and school factors. The three-factor solution has a slightly better fit to the data, though the difference was not statistically significant.

Despite the adjustments described above, attitudes toward public funding for Buddhist military chaplains do not fit neatly into either model of establishment attitudes. Many of those who most strongly favor connections between church and state want to make the United States a Christian nation, and not to help non-Christian religions. Of course, a majority of Americans did support funding for Buddhist chaplains, but this support was ac- tually lower among those who were the most supportive of Christian establishment on other items. Eliminating this item from the two LISREL models results in a significant improvement of fit.

The LISREL models in Table 3 indicate that the public does respond to various concrete issues of religious establishment in a fairly consistent manner. There is a surprising level of horizontal constraint among the various specific establishment issue attitudes. Yet the bivariate results above suggest that there may not be as much vertical constraint that is, these issue positions may not be linked by any abstract principles.

VERTICAL CONSTRAINT

Wilcox et al. (1992) reported a moderate level of vertical constraint among the mass public on establishment issues. This analysis confirms their result. The three latent-issue variables are all significantly related to abstract cognitions. The strongest predictor was attitudes toward religion in schools, followed by attitudes toward public displays of Judeo- Christian values. The results are shown at the bottom of Table 3. The standardized gamma values (LISREL regression coefficients) are relatively robust, but these three concrete scales combine to explain only 29% of the variation in abstract orientations.

CONCLUSIONS

The LISREL results show a fairly constrained mass public that sees connections between various concrete issues of church-state establishment across several issue areas. Moreover, there is evidence that the public connects its abstract orientations toward church-state affairs with these concrete positions. A one-dimensional model fits the data nearly as well as the three-dimensional one, suggesting that many Americans think of these issues as involving a single dimension of religious establishment. Yet the better fit of the three-dimensional model suggests that some Americans draw distinctions between symbolic public displays of religion, teaching religion in schools, and using tax dollars to support religion.

This analysis can tell us little about the sources of this attitudinal constraint, but it seems likely that this constraint is social in nature. Religious communities take positions on issues of religious establishment, and communicate them to their members. Evangelical and fundamentalist churches frequently preach that the United States is a Christian nation, and that public displays of that Christian heritage are important to retaining God's




favor. Liberal Protestant churches and Jewish synagogues are more likely to value separation between church and state, with Catholic parishes in between.

Although evidence shows attitudinal constraint in these data, this does not mean that Americans reason deductively from abstract principles to derive their specific positions on issues. Indeed, the large discrepancy between the general orientations of the mass public and their concrete issue positions suggests that little deductive reasoning is taking place. Further research must explore the sources of these attitudes and of the cement that binds them.

REFERENCES

Bollen, Kenneth A. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.

Converse, Philip 1964 The nature of belief systems in mass

publics. In Ideology and Discontent, edited by David Apter. New York: Wiley.

Elifson, Kirk and C. Kirk Hadaway 1985 Prayer in public schools: When church and

state collide. Public Opinion Quarterly 49:317-329.

Erikson, Robert S., Norman R. Luttbeg, and Kent L. Tedin

1991 American public opinion. New York: MacMillan.

Green, John and James Guth 1989 The missing link: Political activists and

support for school prayer. Public Opinion Quarterly 53:41-57.

Hunter, James Davison 1990 The Williamsburg charter survey: Method-

ology and findings. Journal of Law and Religion 8:257-272.

Hurwitz, Jon and Mark Peffley 1987 How are foreign policy attitudes structured?

A hierarchical model. Americant Political Science Review 81:1099-1120.

McClosky, Herbert 1964 Consensus and ideology in American

politics. American Political Science Review 58:361-382.

Prothro, J. and C. Grigg 1960 Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases

of agreement and disagreement. Journal of Politics 22:276-294.

Tamney, Joseph and Stephen Johnson 1987 Church-state relations in the eighties:

Public opinion in middletown. Sociological Analysis 48:1-16.

Wilcox, Clyde, Joseph Ferrara, John O'Donnell, Mary Bendyna, Shaun Geehan, and Rod Taylor

1992 Public attitudes toward church-state issues: Elite-mass issues. Journal of Church and State 34:259-278.



The Dimensionality of Public Attitudes toward Church-State Establishment Issues

Documents

Transcript of The Dimensionality of Public Attitudes toward Church-State Establishment Issues