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 Religion

Roman 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 oneself

have 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

safety

have 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> EO

Slf-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 sample

At 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