And Then There Were Nones

Last year, I posted the results of the General Social Survey showing that, in 2012, 20% of American adults reported themselves as having “no religion,” and that these folks—referred to by demographers as the “nones”—are increasing by about .6% per year. This month, the Pew Research Group released the results of their 2014 Religious Landscape Study. This survey, undertaken every seven years, is based on the results of a quota sample of over 35,000 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus .6%. Although Pew refers to their nones as “unaffiliated,” the results are strikingly consistent.

Pew reports that 22.8% of the population were nones in 2014, up 6.7% from 16.1% in 2007. Meanwhile, those calling themselves Christians declined from 78.4% to 70.6%. This amounts to an increase of 19 million nones, for a new total of 56 million. Among all religious groups, the nones are second in size only to evangelical Protestants. A followup question showed that, of this 22.8%, 3.1% said they were atheists, 4% claimed to be agnostic, and 15.8% believed “nothing in particular.” This leaves open the possibility that some of the nones engage in spiritual practices, pray, or believe in one or more gods. There was also a 6% increase in those saying that religion is "not too" or "not at all important" in their lives.

The Pew researchers offer two explanations for this shift.

1. Generational replacement. The most dramatic increases in the percentage of nones occurred among younger adults. However, they increased across all generations, even rising by 2% among people over 70.
2. Switching religions. Among those who report switching their religious affiliation, the nones showed the largest gains of any group. Eighteen percent of Americans who were raised in a religious faith now claim to be unaffiliated.

Another perspective on this trend comes from the 2015 State of Atheism in America, a study by the Barna Group. It combines the results of four surveys of 23,000 adults conducted in 2011 through 2014. The Barna Group calls their nones the “unchurched,” meaning that they say they haven't attended church in the last six months. This results in a larger group, about 36% of the total. They find that 25% of the unchurched are either atheists or agnostics, a group they call “skeptics.” I find this a more interesting group than folks who believe “nothing in particular,” since they would seem to have given some thought to religion.

The Barna Group identifies five demographic shifts among their skeptics when they are compared to the same group in a 1993 survey they conducted.

1. They are younger. In fact, 34% of them are between 18 and 30.
2. They are more educated. Half of them are college graduates. Only 32% of Americans over 25 have graduated from college.
3. A higher percentage are women. Male skepticism increased too, but not as much as among women.
4. They are more racially diverse. This is due largely to an increase in skepticism among Hispanics and especially Asians.
5. They are more regionally dispersed. The Northeast and West continue to have higher percentages of skeptics, but the differences are not as great as in the past.

The last three trends suggest a mainstreaming of skepticism. Rather than being a distinctive subgroup, atheists and agnostics are becoming more broadly representative of the population. One major exception, however, is the continuing underrepresentation of African-Americans.

The Barna Group's stated goal is to reconnect with skeptics and bring them back under the influence of superstition, so they asked skeptics what they thought of Christian churches. They note four common responses, although they don't report the percentages who gave each one.

1. The church is group of people who share a physical space but are not otherwise connected to one another in meaningful ways.
2. The church adds little of value to their community.
3. The church stands for the wrong political policies: war, sexual and physical violence, prevention of gay marriage and reproductive freedom, etc.
4. Church leaders are not trustworthy.

The third response supports the backlash hypothesis—that young people are leaving the Christian religion because they disagree with its conservative politics.

What can we conclude from all of this? Due to the positive association of religiosity with age, the percentage of nones is likely to continue to increase. This is good news for liberals. In an earlier post, I presented evidence suggesting that the most important causes of religiosity are poverty and lack of education. Barring an increase in the financial desperation of the middle class or a weakening of our system of public education—both very real possibilities—the future of organized religion does not seem very bright.

You may also be interested in reading:

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 1

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 2

The God Squad, Part 1: Religion as Selfish Individualism

The God Squad, Part 3: Projection

When I took General Psychology many years ago, I memorized the definitions of the Freudian defense mechanisms—repression, regression, reaction formation, etc. One of them was projection, usually defined as attributing one's negative qualities to other people. For example, a person who is tempted to cheat on his or her spouse may be suspicious that the partner is fooling around. It isn't clear, however, that projection should be limited to negative attributes.

A more general principle that encompasses Freudian projection is the false consensus effect—a cognitive bias in which we overestimate the percentage of people who share our attitudes and behaviors. Social psychologists usually explain false consensus at least in part by a need for social validation. If other people share our attitudes, presumably those attitudes are more likely to be “correct.” (The fact that we selectively associate with people similar to ourselves is another explanation for false consensus.)

The YouGov poll cited in Part 1 asked participants whether they thought Jesus would support or oppose each of the seven social policies included in the survey. In general, participants thought Jesus was more conservative than they were, and Protestants thought he was further to the right than Catholics did. However, there were large differences between what Republicans, Independents and Democrats thought Jesus's opinions were.

Do you think Jesus would support . . .?	Republican	Independent	Democrat
Gay marriage	9%	32%	48%
Legal abortion	6%	19%	29%
Death penalty for murderers	43%	35%	27%
Stricter gun laws	28%	40%	68%
High taxes on the wealthy	18%	43%	63%
Universal healthcare	23%	52%	80%
Reducing carbon emissions	31%	51%	68%

© www.equinoxpub.com

Decades of social psychological research show that one of the best predictors of friendship is attitude similarity. We like people who agree with us. It follows that if you are going to spend time conversing with an imaginary friend, you would want to create one who shares your attitudes. Thus, Republicans see Jesus as a Republican and Democrats see him as a Democrat. As sociologist Phil Zuckerman noted:

[R]eligion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition . . . and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook.

This is most consistent with a false consensus interpretation of projection. What better way to increase your confidence in your own political attitudes than to believe they are shared by the gods?

You may also be interested in reading:

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 1

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 2

The God Squad, Part 1:  Religion as Selfish Individualism

The God Squad, Part 2:  The "Greening" of Christianity

The God Squad, Part 2: The "Greening" of Christianity

In Part 1, it was noted that religious people are less supportive of reducing carbon emissions than non-religious people. In the last couple of decades, several surveys have shown a negative relationship between religiosity and environmental concern. One commentator sees Christian disregard for the environment as rooted in the Old Testament claim that God gave Man dominion over the Earth, and the New Testament promise of the imminent return of Jesus, which implies to some that they might as well trash the place.

A new study by John Clements and others analyzes data from the 2010 General Social Survey, with a sample size of 1430. Environmental concern is divided into three components: perceived dangerousness of environmental problems, willingness to pay or sacrifice to protect the environment, and self-reported environmentally-conscious behaviors. Here are the results by religious identification. Christians are less environmentally concerned than non-religious people or members of other religious groups.

Perceived Environmental Dangerousness

% choosing “dangerous” or “extremely dangerous”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Air pollution caused by cars	44.4%	57.8%	50.0%
Pesticides and chemicals used in farming	51.7%	71.8%	56.4%
Air pollution caused by industry	64.5%	69.4%	72.4%
Pollution of rivers, lakes and streams	68.4%	75.3%	75.6%

Willingness to Pay or Sacrifice

% choosing “willing” or “very willing”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Pay much higher prices	43.8%	59.4%	55.2%
Accept cuts in standard of living	32.6%	45.7%	43.7%
Pay much higher taxes	28.5%	52.2%	43.7%

Private Environmental Behaviors

% choosing “sometimes” or “always”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Sort glass, cans or plastic for recycling	61.5%	75.7%	62.9%
Buy fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals	33.5%	50.7%	35.0%
Cut back on driving a car	16.1%	31.2%	23.8%

Christians have also been slower to accept the evidence that the Earth is warming. Here are the results of a 2009 survey (n = 1502) by the Pew Research Center.

Since the mid-1990s, the mass media have been publicizing a reform movement within Christianity that claims Christians have a duty to protect the environment. Even Pope Francis has argued for “wise stewardship” of the environment. Has this movement had any impact on Christians' attitudes and behavior?

The same measures of environmental concern were used in the 1993 General Social Survey. Clements and his colleagues found no evidence of the “greening” of Christianity. Self-identified Christians reported less environmental concern than non-Christians and non-religious people in both 1993 and 2010, and there was no significant change in Christian environmental concern. The only exception was a slight moderation of environmental attitudes among evangelical Protestants, which still left them far behind other denominations.

The good news for the environment is that the number of non-religious Americans is increasing, especially among young adults. However, the change is probably too gradual to save the planet.

You may also be interested in reading:

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 1

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 2

The God Squad, Part 1:  Religion as Selfish Individualism

The God Squad, Part 3:  Projection

The God Squad, Part 1: Religion as Selfish Individualism

YouGov.com, a polling organization used by many social scientists, recently released the results of a survey on religion and political attitudes. The data were collected on July 1 and 2 from a representative sample of 1000 Americans who are registered as volunteers with the organization. People who identified themselves as either Protestants, Catholics, of some other religion, or as athiests or agnostics were asked whether they supported or opposed seven social policies.

Do you support . . .?	Protestant	Catholic	Other religion	Agnostic or atheist
Gay marriage	31%	44%	59%	89%
Legal abortion	31%	41%	62%	90%
Death penalty for murderers	59%	66%	54%	48%
Stricter gun laws	44%	55%	54%	65%
High taxes on the wealthy	49%	57%	61%	74%
Universal healthcare	46%	55%	57%	81%
Reducing carbon emissions	55%	63%	70%	85%

Similar results are obtained when religiosity is defined by self-reported frequency of prayer, or by claiming to have been “born again.” This supports other research showing that religious people are more conservative than non-religious people, and that Protestants are more conservative than other religious groups. As you would expect, the differences are greatest on support for gay marriage and abortion, but differences of opinion on health care and taxes are also quite substantial.

Although YouGov did not cross-tabulate the relationship between religion and political affiliation, the differences in attitudes between Republicans, Independents and Democrats closely parallel the differences between religious groups. Exit poll data from the 2012 election also support the connection between religion and political preference.

Do you support . . .?	Republican	Independent	Democrat
Gay marriage	17%	49%	65%
Legal abortion	24%	48%	65%
Death penalty for murderers	68%	60%	50%
Stricter gun laws	19%	44%	82%
High taxes on the wealthy	28%	52%	81%
Universal healthcare	14%	51%	85%
Reducing carbon emissions	40%	64%	78%

These results might give pause to people who claim to be religious liberals. For example, if you believe that religious people have a duty to feed the hungry, heal the sick, or behave nonaggressively, how have you arrived at an interpretation of Christianity that is so sharply at odds with most of your fellow Christians? If you are contributing to religious organizations, is your money used to support policies with which you personally disagree, and to persuade vulnerable people to adopt the world view represented by these poll results?

You may also be interested in reading:

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 1

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 2

The God Squad, Part 2:  The "Greening" of Christianity

The God Squad, Part 3:  Projection

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 2

Before continuing, please read Part 1 of this post.

What are the reasons for the rise of the nones? The media often propose some variation of a political backlash model, suggesting that organized religion has alienated young people with its stance on a cluster of issues related to sexuality and the family—divorce, contraception, abortion, gay rights, and the status of women. And in fact, the nones hold more liberal views on all of these issues. For example, 72% of them believe that abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances, while 53% of the population hold that view, and 73% support same-sex marriages, compared to only 48% of the population. However, these attitudes could be a result rather than a cause of their secularism, or they could all be caused by other social conditions.

Cross-cultural research on the sociology of religion has emphasized two predictors of religiosity, poverty and lack of education. The Existential Security Framework proposes that objective measures of security, such as material wealth, good health and a government-provided safety net, encourage secularity. When people lack these forms of security and can't do much about it, they turn to superstition as a way of asking for help.  Comparing countries, there is a strong positive relationship between poverty and religiosity. Non-believers are concentrated in European countries such as Sweden (64%), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). On the other hand, fewer than 1% of people from Sub-Saharan Africa are non-believers. However, the United States is one of the richer countries that bucks this trend. In addition, this model may be better at explaining the worldwide decline in religiosity than changes here in the United States, since real wages in this country have been stagnant for the past 30 years.

If poverty is religion's friend, its worst enemy is probably education, especially insofar as it encourages scientific literacy and critical thinking. Data from Canada indicate that, holding other variables constant, each additional year of schooling results in a 4% increase in the likelihood that a person reports no religious affiliation. Braun attempted to find out which was the best predictor of secularism, education or economic security. He assembled 149 objective measures from some or all of the world's 193 countries. He grouped them into clusters of related measures with the help of factor analysis. He then used multiple regression to determine which measures were most strongly related to survey questions about the importance of God and religion in one's life.

He found that education was the strongest predictor of lack of religiosity, and that economic security had no additional effect when education was held constant. It's important to note that multiple regression is just an advanced form of correlational analysis. These data do not mean education is the cause of secularism, economic security or any of the other variables in the analysis. It merely indicates that education accounts for more of the variability in religiosity than any of the other measures that were available. 

Once again, the United States is an outlier in that we are more religious than our average level of educational attainment would predict, and the positive relationship between years of schooling and non-belief is weaker than in other countries. My own hypothesis, unsupported by data, is that political interference in the public schools prevents American teachers from referring to religion in any but the most favorable terms. Even at the college level, attempts to discuss critical thinking sometimes lead to complaints to administrators from religious students. (It's possible to lecture on critical thinking without mentioning religion, but students usually recognize that critical thinking is pretty much the opposite of religious faith and this invariably comes up in discussions.)

Whatever the reason for the shift, if the nones continue to increase, it is likely to benefit the Democratic Party in national elections. Here are the exit poll data from 2012, broken down by religion.

However, before you members of the Jackass Party break out the champagne, two words of caution:

• The nones make up 20% of the adult population but only 12% of the voters. One of the challenges for Democrats will be to mobilize this group.
• The 2012 presidential race probably overstates the effect of religion on voting, since Barack Obama was one of the candidates. Not only are religious people more likely to be conservative, they are also significantly higher in racial prejudice.

You may also be interested in reading:

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 1

Poverty Causes Harsher Moral Judgments

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 1

A couple of years ago, a neighbor and I chatted about the weather while walking our dogs. The topic of climate change came up. He said he agreed with his minister, who had told him that global warming was nonsense. After I began to tick off some of the evidence, he reversed direction and said he welcomed extreme climate change, since it would bring about the “end times.” He and his co-religionists would ascend to heaven, where it is presumably air conditioned. Of course, this is just an anecdote, and it could be misleading, but in this case it's not. I thought about it when I read some recent surveys reporting the rise of the “nones.”

The General Social Survey (GSS) is pretty much the gold standard in American survey research. Not only is the sample representative, but they have a response rate of 70% and 83% of their interviews are conducted in person. The interviews average 90 minutes apiece and respondents are paid $20. Since 1972, the GSS has been asking: “What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?” The percentage answering no religion has gone from 5% in 1972 to 20% in 2012 (the most recent survey). Here's the trend line. 

Since 1990, those preferring no religion have been increasing by .6% per year. These data are consistent with the results of other national surveys.

So the priests are losing ground to the nones. Does this mean the nones are discarding their old habits? Not exactly. Rather than individuals changing their attitudes, we're seeing a demographic transition, as older, more religious people die and are replaced by younger, less religious folks. Here's the 2012 data sliced by age. In the 18-30 age group, also known as the “Millennials,” more people are choosing the secular option than either Protestant or Catholic.

Here the attitudes of these same 18-30-year-olds regarding the existence of “God” are compared to older folks.

What are the reasons for the rise of the nones? Please see Part 2.

You may also be interested in reading:

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 2

Poverty Causes Harsher Moral Judgments

Poverty Causes Harsher Moral Judgments

You might expect poor people to be more sympathetic toward criminals and other transgressors, since they experience some of the same economic and social stressors as the people they're judging. However, the present research finds low income people to be more harsh in their moral judgments. Two French psychologists, Marko Pitesa and Stefan Thau, propose an explanation for this result.

The authors suggest that people who lack financial resources feel more vulnerable to the potentially harmful behavior of others, since they are less able to cope with victimization. For example, in the case of theft, a poor person will have more difficulty replacing the stolen objects than a richer person. Their harsher moral judgments, then, can be seen as a self-protective response by which they hope to reduce the threat of their own victimization by punishing perpetrators severely. Notice this argument only applies to offenses that do real material harm to someone, but not to victimless actions.

Public Execution in Iran, 2013
© hriran.com

The hypothesis was tested in two studies. The first utilized data from over 85,000 residents of 56 countries participating in the World Values Survey. The respondents were asked to evaluate eight harmful behaviors, such as lying and cheating on taxes, on a scale from “1” (“never justifiable”) to “10” (“always justifiable”). The two measures of economic vulnerability were the participants' self-reported household income, and the rate of inflation in their country. The effects of five control variables were statistically eliminated: education, occupational status, subjective social class, religiosity and race.

Both economic variables had significant effects. Lower income people and people living in countries with high inflation were more negative in their judgments of people who misbehave. In addition, inflation only made a difference when the respondents were poor. The effect of inflation was only statistically significant for people whose incomes were in the bottom sixth of the income distribution.

Of course, these are all correlations, and uncontrolled variables could be responsible for them. What I like about this paper is that they followed up the survey with a controlled experiment. A representative sample of 203 Americans partcipated on the internet. The researchers subtly manipulated the participants' perception of their own wealth by having them indicate their monthly income on an 11-point scale. They varied the anchors on the scale. In the material-resources-lacking condition, “1” was labeled “$0-$1000” and “11” was labeled “over $500,000” (a month!). Obviously, most participants circled numbers near the low end. In the material-resources-not-lacking condition, the scale anchors were “$0-$50” and “over $500.” Most participants were at or near the high end of the scale.

Participants then read five scenarios of either harmful behaviors, i.e., assault, or victimless actions, i.e., masturbation, and rated how “wrong,” “blameworthy,” “inappropriate” and “unacceptable” they each were. The victimless actions were included to ensure that participants who felt economically deprived didn't simply become more negative toward all behaviors.

As expected, the subjects who felt subjectively poorer were harsher in their judgments of the harmful behaviors than those who felt relatively well off. However, there was no difference between the two groups in their evaluations of the victimless actions. A further analysis showed that the relationship between financial insecurity and harsher moral judgments was mediated by feelings of vulnerability (but not by any of the other mood and personality variables that were collected).

When I started reading this article, I thought it might shed some light on the psychology of religion. We know that religiosity is higher in the world's poorest nations, and feelings of vulnerability seem like a plausible explanation. However, I would expect religiosity to be associated with more punitive moral judgments of victimless transgressions as well as those with victims. The experiment finds that lack of material resources only causes harsher judgments of actions that do real harm to victims.

You may also be interested in reading:

Deadbeats for Self-Reliance