Religion and Charitable Financial Giving to Religious and Secular Causes: Does Political Ideology Matter?

Abstract

Previous research on charitable giving has identified a significant relationship between political conservatism and greater financial giving to charitable causes. Yet that research has not adequately explored the important role of religion in that relationship, nor differences in financial giving targets (i.e., religious congregations, noncongregational religious organizations, and nonreligious organizations). Support for competing theories concerning political ideology, religious practice, and charitable financial giving is assessed using data from the Panel Study on American Ethnicity and Religion (PS-ARE). For both religious and nonreligious giving, the effect of political ideology is completely mediated by participation in religious and civic practices. These findings support recent arguments on "practice theory" in cultural sociology and suggest that it is less the effect of ideology than of active participation in religious, political, and community organizations that explains Americans' financial giving to religious and nonreligious organizations.

Regional Patterns of Giving in the United States during the Great Recession

“…Consistent with the literature (Vaidyanathan et al, 2011;Forbes and Zampelli, 1997;Will and Cochran, 1995;Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2010;Ottoni-Wilhelm et al, 2007) [12]- [16], we find an association in the maps as well as the Chi-square tests between attendance at religious services and income donated to charities. Similar associations are found between income donated to charities and inequality, supporting notions that philanthropy and inequality are related (Laskowski, 2011;Greve, 2009;Dasgupta and Kanbur, 2011) [17]- [19].…”

“…Notwithstanding conflicting results of prior research addressing religion and philanthropic giving, there is a consensus that church attendance is associated with increased philanthropic giving (Vaidyanathan et [12] conclusions regarding giving and religious affiliation present a complex picture. According to Vaidyanathan et al (2011, pp.…”

“…According to Vaidyanathan et al (2011, pp. 463-466) [12], religious attendance is associated strongly with congregational giving, but the effect is much weaker for noncongregational nonreligious charities. The significance of religious attendance decreases when political activity is added to the model, and the significance of religious attendance disappears when political activity and religious tradition are incorporated to the model.…”

“…al. (1998) [9] have pointed toward religion as an explanation, others seemed to disagree or produced more ambiguous results (Paciotti et al, 2011;Saslow et al, 2013;Vaidyanathan et al, 2011) [10]- [12]. Armstrong (2011, pp.…”

Fast or Slow: Sociological Implications of Measuring Dual-Process Cognition

“…Several scholars have used dual-process frameworks to back their empirical and theoretical claims (Cerulo 2010;Escher 2013;Lizardo et al 2016;Martin and Desmond 2010;Miles 2015;Srivastava and Banaji 2011;Vaidyanathan, Hill, and Smith 2011), while others have called the sociological significance of dual-process theories of cognition into question, critiquing their practical application to empirical cases (Berezin 2014;Jerolmack and Khan 2014;Pugh 2013;Wuthnow 2011). One major limitation in this debate, however, is that sociologists making use of dual-process theories in their work often fail to provide empirical evidence from their own data specifically confirming their dual-process claims.…”