Religion and Democratic Commitment: A Unifying Motivational Framework

Abstract

There is no easy answer to the question of whether religiosity promotes or hinders commitment to democracy. Earlier research largely pointed to religiosity as a source of antidemocratic orientations. More recent empirical evidence is less conclusive, however, suggesting that the effect of religiosity on democratic commitment could be positive, negative, or null. We review the existing approaches to the study of religiosity and democratic commitment, focusing on support for the democratic system, political engagement, and political tolerance, by distinguishing accounts that examine a single dimension of religiosity from accounts that adopt a multidimensional approach. We show that multidimensional approaches, while effective in accounting for the effect of religiosity on discrete democratic norms, fall short of accounting for some of the inconsistencies in the literature and in identifying the mechanisms that may be responsible for shaping how religiosity affects endorsement of democratic norms as a whole. To fill this gap, we propose the Religious Motivations and Expressions (REME) model. Applying theories of goal constructs to religion, this model maps associations between three religious expressions (belief, social behavior, and private behavior) and the religious motivations that underly these expressions. We discuss how inconsistent associations between religiosity and elements of democratic commitment can be rendered interpretable once the motivations underlying religious expressions, as well as contextual information, are accounted for. We contend that applying goal constructs to religion is critical for understanding the nature of the religion‐democracy nexus.

A motivational framework of religion: Tying together the why and the how of religion

“…However, religious belief may be associated with less prosociality when the primary motivation underlying it is social enhancement. Future research can apply the integrated model to establish which elements of religious motivations and expressions are tied to constructs that have been frequently studied in association with religion, such as prosociality and life satisfaction, and how religious expressions might manifest different motivations (e.g., see Ben‐Nun Bloom et al., 2021).…”

A motivational framework of acculturation

“…For instance, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) accounts for the determinants of behavior, which serve individuals’ goals, yet only recently has the theory been integrated with a motivational framework of what individuals are motivated to pursue (Ajzen & Kruglanski, 2019). The distinction between motivations and means for attaining them has provided novel theoretical and empirical insights in diverse domains, including for interpersonal processes (Orehek & Forest, 2016), emotion regulation (Millgram et al., 2019; Vishkin et al., 2020), and religion (Ben‐Nun Bloom et al., 2021; Vishkin et al., 2021). The applicability of a framework of goal constructs in explaining phenomena in disparate fields suggests that such a theoretical framework may meet the call for rigorous frameworks that cut across particular subfields and disciplines (Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2019).…”

Religiosity and electoral turnout among Muslims in Western Europe

“…There is a consensus within religious research that religiosity is multidimensional (Azabar et al, 2020;Ben-Nun Bloom et al, 2021;Glock, 1962;Voas, 2007). These dimensions can differ across religions, in meaning, expression, and how they are linked to various beliefs and behavior (Kollar and Fleischmann, 2022).…”