Identification with Religion: Cross‐National Evidence from a Social Psychological Perspective

Abstract

Why is religion a more central social identity for some people than for others? Previous studies focus on explaining individual differences in religious affiliation and religiosity, often using the term "identification" in reference to these concepts. Yet, few scholars operationalize-let alone attempt to explain-identification with religion in social psychological terms, i.e., as a construct that captures the subjective psychological centrality of one's religious identity. After underscoring the benefits of exploring religious identification using cross-national data, we employ an original data set composed of nationally representative surveys in three European countries to model religious identification in two ways: importance (independent strength of attachment) and prominence (prioritization of one's religious identity relative to the others one holds). We document substantial variation in the degree to which individuals define themselves on the basis of their religious identity. We then test predictions drawn from existing theories to model these two measures. Our results extend current understandings of what shapes psychological attachment to religion and raise new questions for future theorization and analysis.

Survey Zoroastrians: Online Religious Identification in the Islamic Republic of Iran

“…Rather than showing similarities with Shia Muslims or Atheists, in this respect Survey Zoroastrians more resemble Spiritual people—of whom 59 percent said that religion is not at all important, 24 percent said that religion is not important, 12 percent said that it is somewhat important, and only 1 percent said that it is very important. It would be wrong to deduce from these results that, because religion is not at the center of many Survey Zoroastrians’ identity, the imagined attachment to Zoroastrianism is not important to who they think they are and wish to be (compare with Curtis and Olson 2019). Rather, Zoroastrianism is dissociated from the idea of being a religious person.…”

A (supra)nationalist personality? The Big Five’s effects on political-territorial identification

“…Boomgaarden et al., 2011; Carey, 2002; Winter, 2003), we must first know what causes someone to identify a given way. Yet empirical investigations into what explains identification itself remain far rarer than those investigating the consequences of that identification (Curtis and Olson, 2019).…”

A Political Profile of U.S. Pagans

“…Research on mainstream religions demonstrates clear linkages between the aspects of institutionalized religion (e.g., the influence of church leadership or the development of church-based civic skills and social networks) and congregants' political attitudes and engagement (Djupe and Grant 2001; Campbell 2004; Smith 2005; Djupe and Gilbert 2006; 2008). Connections between religious institutions and political engagement can be especially important for members of minority religions in the U.S.—particular attention has been paid to Islam in recent years—(Contractor 2011; Chouhoud, Dana, and Barreto 2019) for whom religious identity can be stronger than larger, majority faiths (Hoverd, Sibley, and Atkinson 2012; Curtis and Olson 2019). However, this relationship can look different for non-Abrahamic religions where political engagement can be driven by private religious practice rather than by communal or small-group religious participation (Schoettmer 2013).…”