isa arroyo tormos_presentation

Secularization and the multidimensional concept of

religiosity

Raül Tormos & Lili Arroyo

ISA World Congress 2010, Göteborg

• The idea that the developed world is in a process of secularization still generates debate, but it is commonly accepted.

• There are many empirical evidences that support it (see Norris&Inglehart 2004 among many others).

• But how do we measure religiosity to be able to say it is eroding?

Theoretical debate

eroding?

• We argue that the theory of secularization should take into account a multidimensional concept of religiosity.

• Secularization could be affecting the different dimensions of religiosity in different ways.

• Conventional / institutional religiosity = eroding Personal / individual religiosity = ?

• Different authors seem to point in this direction: (but systematic measurement efforts are hard to find)

– Inglehart (1990)

• Talks about a renewed emphasis on spiritual values in postindustrial societies.

• Reflects on the perils of using just indicators of practices to

Theoretical debate

• Reflects on the perils of using just indicators of practices to measure the concept of religiosity.

– Inglehart & Norris (2004), Sacred and Secular

• In postindustrial societies people are becoming:– indifferent to traditional religious values, – but they are not abandoning private or individualized spirituality.

• People are increasingly interested in the meaning and purpose of life.

– When survival is uncertain � need for security in religion

Theoretical debate

– When survival is uncertain � need for security in religion– When survival is guaranteed � need for meaning

• At the same time in this countries, there is less support for:– Traditional religious authorities– Established religious practices

– Pollack & Pickel (2007)

• Link between individualization theory and secularization.

• Modernization will produce a change in the forms of religionmore than a decline in its social significance.

• Traditional forms of religiosity will be replaced by more subjective ones:

– detached from church,

Theoretical debate

– detached from church, – individually chosen,– and syncretistic.

• With the indicators they used, they concluded that the rise of individual religiosity cannot compensate for the loss of institutionalized religiosity.

• Departing from here, we started with the idea of a cross-country over time comparison of religiosity indicators (individual level).

• We wanted to question whether the secularization-thesis was really valid for the different dimensions of religiosity:

• Religion as an institution – Religious impulse, or• Conventional religiosity – Individualized religiosity

Data and methodological strategies

• But soon we realized we were facing a measurement problem: complicated concepts-by-postulation not clearly defined in the literature (religiosity, secularization).

• Then we turned our attention to the measure of religiosity.

• In the literature we found basically theoretically-driven measures and a lack of empirically-driven ones.

• Main problem: finding good measures for our theoretical concepts in the available surveys.

• We wanted to use an appropriate methodology for our measurement model � Structural Equation Modeling.

• Difficulties to fit our theory and data into a measurement model (SEM):– Inappropriate variables– Incomplete data (waves, gaps)


• But as we believed in the existence of a two dimensional religiosity model, went on with the analysis.

• And we did not want to proceed as in part of the literature: only theoretical definitions from which to construct more or less arbitrary indexes.

• We use the 1st round of the ESS, Spanish subset.

• Importance of religion in life (11 point scale)

• Church attendance (7 point scale)

• Frequency of praying (7 point scale)

• Self -assessed religiosity (11 point scale)


• Self -assessed religiosity (11 point scale)

• Importance of religion in life (11 point scale)

– Wording: “How important is religion in your life?”From 0 extremely unimportant to 10 extremely important.

– It sits on a battery of items representing spheres of life (family, work, friends, etc.)


– To Norris & Inglehart it is a religious value (ultimate goal).

– Supposedly previous to religious beliefs and participation.

• Church attendance (7 point scale)

– Wording: “How often do you attend religious services apart from special occasions?”1 Every day; 2 More than once a week; 3 Once a week; 4 At least once a month; 5 Only on special holy days; 6 less often; 7 never.

– An institutional / communitarian form of religious participation.


– An institutional / communitarian form of religious participation.

– Established by family bonds, habit and social environment, and not only by personal beliefs

– It does not necessarily reflect the personal views of individuals.

• Frequency of praying (7 point scale)

– Wording: “How often do you pray apart from religious services?”1 Every day; 2 More than once a week; 3 Once a week; 4 At least once a month; 5 Only on special holy days; 6 less often; 7 never

– A personal / individual form of religious participation.– It is possible for people to pray even though he does not attend


– It is possible for people to pray even though he does not attend religious services.

• Self-assessed religiosity (11 point scale)

– Wording: “How religious are you?” From 0 not at all religious to 10 very religious

– Subjective self-considerations which is not necessarily link to conventional religiosity (however conventional religious people would also consider themselves religious).


would also consider themselves religious).

• We wanted to test:

– if these 4 indicators converge in a single latent variable of religiosity,

– or to what extent we can talk of more than one dimension of religiosity?


Frequency of participation

y =ŋ

Importance of religion in life

y1=ŋ1

β11

Ɛ1

Ɛ2Ɛ5

Measurement model for religiosity (ESS 1rd, Spain)

X1 X2 X3 X4

X1 1.00

X2 0.64 1.00

X3 0.59 0.61 1.00

X4 0.63 0.67 0.72 1.00

y2=ŋ2

Frequency of praying

y3=ŋ3

Religiosityŋ5

β21

β31

Degree of religiosity

y4=ŋ4

β41

Ɛ3

Ɛ4

Latent Y model

Religiosity 1bdat ni=4 no=1800 ma=kmkm1.00.64 1.00.59 .61 1.00.63 .67 .72 1.00labelsy1 y2 y3 y4

Variance/covariance of latent variables

No. eta (endogenous variables)

Matrix of the disturbance terms:No covariance between disturbances

model ne=5 ny=4 be=fu,fi ly=fu,fi te=di,fi ps=di,frva 1 ly 1 1 ly 2 2 ly 3 3 ly 4 4fr be 1 5 be 2 5 be 3 5 be 4 5 fi ps 5 5va 1 ps 5 5start .5 alloutput mr tv mi ss

Fixed variance of latent Y

There are lambdas and betas

Lambdas fixed to one


x2


x1

δ1

δ2

0.44

0.38

0.75

0.79

Complete measurement model for religiosity (ESS 1rd, Spain)

x2


x3

Religiosityξ1


x4

δ3

δ4

0.35

0.25

0.81

0.86

Df. = 2Chi-Square’s p-value = 0.00


x

Measurement model with correlated errors


x1

λ11

X1 X2 X3 X4

X1 1.00

X2 0.64 1.00

X3 0.59 0.61 1.00

X4 0.63 0.67 0.72 1.00

δ1

δ2

δ21

x2


x3

Religiosityξ1

λ21

λ31


x4

λ41

δ3

δ4

Religiosity 2dat ni=4 no=1800 ma=kmkm1.00.64 1.00.59 .61 1.00.63 .67 .72 1.00labelsy1 y2 y3 y4model ny=4 ne=1 ly=fu,fr te=sy,fi ps=fu,fifree te 1 1 te 2 2 te 3 3 te 4 4free te 2 1va 1 ps 1 1out mi

Variance of disturbances set free

Only the covariance between e1 and e2 is set free

Set the disturbance of latent variable to one


x2

Complete measurement with correlated errors


x1

δ1

δ2

0.10

0.49

0.43

0.72

0.75x2


x3

Religiosityξ1


x4

δ3

δ4

0.34

0.22

0.81

0.88


• Correlated error terms: some of the covariation is due to sources different to the common factor (and not included in the model).

• So we tried another model departing from the idea of the two dimensions of religiosity

Subjective religiosity

ŋ2


y1

λ42

Ɛ4

Self-assessed religiosity

y4

ζ1

ζ2

Ɛ2

Ɛ1

psi Ψ21 Ho = 1Ha ≠ 1

λ11


y2


y3

Conventional religiosity

ŋ 1

Ɛ2

Ɛ3

λ21

λ31

• If self-assessed religiosity and our latent construct for religiosity not happen to be completely related, this would mean that there is something else that conventional indicators of religiosity are not covering.

• We had the hypothesis that this “something else” is the religious impulse or the personal / individual side of religiosity.


ŋ2


y1

λ42

Ɛ4


y4

ζ1

ζ2

Ɛ2

Ɛ1


λ11

Estimated via SQP


y2


y3

Conventional Religiosity

ŋ 1

Ɛ2

Ɛ3

λ21

λ31

This model was not fitting due to correlated errors


ŋ2


y1

λ42

Ɛ4


y4

ζ1

ζ2

Ɛ2

Ɛ1


λ11


y2


y3


ŋ 1

Ɛ2

Ɛ3

λ21

λ31

The pattern of correlations among errors made us think of an alternative model specification


y3


ŋ2

λ42

Ɛ4


y4

ζ2

psi Ψ21Ho = 1H ≠ 1

λ32

Ɛ3Theoretical model


y2


y1


ŋ 1

ζ1

Ɛ2

Ɛ1

psi Ψ21 Ha ≠ 1

λ11

λ21

Religiosity 4bdat ni=4 no=1800 ma=kmkm1.00.64 1.00.59 .61 1.00.63 .67 .72 1.00labelsy1 y2 y3 y4model ny=4 ne=2 ly=fu,fi te=sy,fi ps=sy,fifree ly 1 1 ly 2 1 ly 3 2 ly 4 2

fre te 1 1 te 2 2 te 3 3 te 4 4va 1 ps 1 1 ps 2 2free ps 2 1out rs mi

Set free the covariance between latent constructs


y3


ŋ2

λ42=0.88

Ɛ4


y4

ζ2

(psi) Ψ21= 0.92

λ32 =0.81

Ɛ3Results (Spain, ESS 1st round)

0.39

0.32

0.34


y2


y1


ŋ 1

ζ1

Ɛ2

Ɛ1

λ 11=0.78

λ21=0.82


0.39

0.33

• From the Spanish data, two dimensions of religiosity emerge:

– One related to traditional religious values and practices – The other is linked to the subjective and personal sphere

• Although these two dimensions are highly correlated, they are not the same, as shown by our measurement

Conclusions

they are not the same, as shown by our measurement model.

• A conventional religious person would score high on the subjective religiosity dimension, but it is also possible for someone to have a personal sense of religiosity and be relatively detached from conventional religiosity.

• The idea of two dimensions of religiosity is similar to Pollack and Pickel (2007) thesis of individualization.

• However, as shown by their empirical analysis, the rise of individually religiosity cannot compensate for the losses of institutionalized religiosity.

• Modernization produces:

Conclusions

• Modernization produces:– Secularization (big part)– Individualization of religion (small part)

• We still have to test it.

Thank you

isa arroyo tormos_presentation

Education

measure of religiosity

theliterature religiosity

religious services

religious practices

religious beliefs

point scale wording

rise of individual religiosity

point scale frequency