Distinctiveness Reconsidered: Religiosity, Structural Location, and Understandings of Racial Inequality

Abstract

Are conservative Protestants distinct in their support for individualistic explanations of racial inequality in America? Past research has generated contradictory findings on this question, along with debates about the best measure of evangelicalism and the factors that moderate religious influences on racial attitudes. Using data from the nationally representative Boundaries in the American Mosaic Project (2014), we examine how structural location interacts with religious commitment to influence understandings of and preferred solutions to African‐American disadvantage. We show that religious beliefs, involvement, and centrality influence adherents differently, depending on their age, gender, education, income, and race. We find that measures do matter, and that denominational affiliation is less predictive than the orthodoxy and centrality of religious belief. We also find that straightforward talk about distinctiveness can mask the strong and pervasive effects of structural location on racial attitudes. We call for more research that makes the interaction between religiosity and structural location a central focus of analysis.

Presidential Address: Religion and Power—A Return to the Roots of Social Scientific Scholarship

“…These themes include: The impact of religious affiliation or religiosity on socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., Scheve and Stasavage ). The effects of religious attitudes and behaviors on sociopolitical attitudes (e.g., Brown et al. ; Brown, Kaiser, and Jackson ). The effects of social status and identity on religious attitudes (e.g., Kokosalakis ). The ways in which stratification systems of race, ethnicity, and class impact or are impacted by religion (e.g., Collett and Lizardo ; Frost and Edgell ; Kim ; Smith and Faris ). How religion impacts society at the macro level, namely, culture, politics, and the economy (Beckford ; Orsi ). How religion serves to legitimate or delegitimate sociopolitical systems (e.g., Billings and Scott ; Davidson and Pyle ; Lincoln ; Pyle and Davidson ; Wuthnow ). …”

“…r The impact of religious affiliation or religiosity on socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., Scheve and Stasavage 2006). r The effects of religious attitudes and behaviors on sociopolitical attitudes (e.g., Brown et al 2016;Brown, Kaiser, and Jackson 2014). r The effects of social status and identity on religious attitudes (e.g., Kokosalakis 1985). r The ways in which stratification systems of race, ethnicity, and class impact or are impacted by religion (e.g., Collett and Lizardo 2009;Frost and Edgell 2017;Kim 2011;Smith and Faris 2005).…”

Affect as a driver to religious‐based consumer boycotts: Evidence from qualitative and quantitative research in the United States

“…After exposure to condition, participants completed scales for religious animosity (α = 0.915), negative affect (α = 0.934), business judgments (α = 0.910), likelihood of participating in the boycott (α = 0.931), complaint intentions (α = 0.957), and religiosity (α = 0.957); Worthington et al, 2003 in that order. See Table 1 for details of scale items, endpoints, origins/where scale was adapted from, as well as information was collected to be consistent with prior research on religion and consumption that suggests that these demographic factors can influence research in this area (Babakus et al, 2004;Bennett & Einolf, 2017;Frost & Edgell, 2017;Minton & Kahle, 2017;Schnabel, 2015;Wolkomir et al, 1997). For example, prior research suggests that the most highly religious consumers are older, female, have lower education levels, and have lower income levels (Minton & Kahle, 2014).…”

Comparing the RELTRAD and Born‐Again/Evangelical Self‐Identification Approaches to Measuring American Protestantism

“…Still others argue that categorizing most African‐American Protestants into a single “black Protestant” tradition risks missing significant diversity of religious belief and practice among this important group (Shelton and Cobb ; and for an extended discussion of the importance of being attentive to the intersectionality of religion and structural locations [e.g., race, gender, etc. ], see Edgell ; Frost and Edgell ; see also Smidt ).…”