Black-White Differences in Rei ig iosity: Item Analyses and A Formal Structural Test*

(1)

Sociological Analysis 1990,51:3257-270

Black-White Differences in

Rei ig iosity: Item Analyses and

A Formal Structural Test*

Cardell K. Jacobson Tim B. Heaton

Brigham Young University

Rutledge M. Dennis

Virginia Commonwealth University

Data collected as part of the Middletown projectin Muncie, Indiana, are used to test both structural and magnitude differences between black and white dimensions of religiosity. The analysis of LinearStructural Relationships (LISREL) handles a numberof potential problems moreadequately than the traditional factoranalytic approach. Fourdimensions are examined: personal religious behavior, belief orthodoxy, ritual involvement, and consequentiality. Though the latent dimensions appear for both blacks and whites, the dimensions are not orthogonal. Furthermore, the dimensions are not interrelated the same way for whites as they are for blacks, and specific itemsdonot relate to the latent dimensions the same way for the two groups. Though a great deal of similarity' exists for black and white religiosity, the results suggest, paraphrasing Stark (1972), that "differences of kind in piety" exist between blacksand whites. These differences have important implications for the future study of religion.

Despite apparently similar theologies, the actual religion experienced by whites and blacks may differ. Few researchers have examined such potential differences primarily because few surveys of religiosity have included enough blacks to allow analysis (for significant exceptions see Nelsen and Nelsen, 1975; McNamara and St. George, 1978; and Beeghley etal.,1981). National data sets, such as the Current Population Survey, have sufficient numbers of black respondents, but have few religion items. The historical roots of black religion go to slavery. Black religion has been characterized as escapist and other-worldly: it has been seen as a refuge from the world (Marx, 1967, 1969; Johnson, 1985). At the same time, black religion has been described as social-emotional and intense, with personal experiences emphasized (Pinkney, 1975; Raboteau, 1978; Roberts, 1984). Active participation is expected during services in most all-black churches. These aspects of black religion may stem from slave days.

*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Society for the Scientific Stud:; of Religion, Louisville, Kentucky, October,1987. Itbenefitted from critical readings by the reviewers andh:v LawrenceA. YDung.

257

at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on May 10, 2016

http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/

(2)

As Rawick (1972:32) has documented, "the slaves in the New World used religion as the central area for the creation and recreation of community." This occurred through prayer meetings and "sings" at night; religion provided the slaves the emotional support necessary to resist oppression, and made their lives bearable. Rawick argues that the slave understood that official religion was used as a method of social control and adopted not official religion, but a "syncretic blend" of white and African religion. Africans also had a personal relationship with their deities. The possibility of such "African survivals" (Herskovitz, 1941; Rawick, 1972) being reflected in current black religion is clear.

Furthermore, religion has provided an organizational basis for the black community (Frazier, 1974; Morris, 1981) and has usually been steadfastly traditional (see Marx, 1967, 1969). Though Gary Marx realized that black religion had a dual orientation, as both an opiate and an inspiration of civil rights militancy, he concluded in his study of blacks in several cities, that black religion was "an important factor working against the widespread radicalization of the Negro public" (Marx, 1969:105). Still other authors have argued that sect-like religions decrease militancy while a church-like orien-tation among blacks promotes conventional militancy (Hunt and Hunt, 1977; Nelsen

et al., 1975). Clearly black religion provides a base in the black community that is

different from that in the white community. Whether these bases stem from or con-tribute to differences in black and white religion remains to be seen.

Nevertheless, once converted to Christianity at the end of the eighteenth century, blacks were taught white theology. Furthermore, interviews with the ex-slave examined by Rawick reflect black religious life of a century ago, before blacks were further assimilated into mainstream society. Thus, whether the belief system for blacks differs from that found for most whites remains an intriguing empirical question.

Any black-white religious differences may reflect social class experiences as well as racial identification and experiences. The relationship of subjective social class and religion for blacks and whites will be examined later in this paper.

Researchers have found some differences in the dimensions of religiosity expressed in various denominations (Glock and Stark, 1968; Johnstone, 1970; Tapp, 1971). In addition, substantial social class differences have been reported (Fukuyama, 1961; Lenski, 1961; Lazerwitz, 1962; Glock and Stark, 1965; Demerath, 1965; Goode, 1966; Stark, 1972). Though some researchers emphasize that the class differences are simply in the degree of expression, others conclude that social class differences in religiosity are qualitatively different for the middle class and working class. As Stark (1972:490) concludes, "class differences in piety are of kind, rather than degree."

Potentially larger group differences exist for racial groups. Using survey data collected in the Middletown studies, we examine black-white responses to specific religious items. We then combine the items to investigate black-white differences in the dimensions of religiosity.

SAMPLES

The data are from two samples collected as part of the large Middletown project conducted in Muncie, Indiana. The white sample was from a mail survey collected

(3)

BLACK-WHITE DIFFERENCES IN RELIGIOSITY

259

in 1978. A random sample of 716 households, approximately seven percent of the city, was selected from the Middletown City Directory, 1977. The questionnaire and a cover letter of instructions were mailed in May, 1978, and two follow-up questionnaires were sent to nonrespondents.

One-hundred-nine individual respondents had moved, died, or could not be located. Two-hundred-thirty of the potential 607 respondents completed the questionnaire, a response rate of 38 percent.

The black survey was conducted in 1981 in census tracts with a high proportion (90 percent) of black families. Addresses were identified, and each tenth address was sent a letter of introduction. The potential respondents were informed of the study and asked for their participation. Black interviewers called or visited to make arrangements for an interview. In the end, the refusal rate was less than 20 percent. Four-hundred-fifty-six interviews were obtained. Since most of the black respondents were Protestant, only Protestants, whether black or white, were used in the analysis presented in this paper. The differences in data collection procedures and response rates for the two samples is unfortunate and may account for some differences in the structure of religiosity for the two groups. Analysis is, nevertheless, justified by the lack of research addressing these issues.

The religion items to be analyzed are presented below. In addition, each survey included a question on subjective social class. The response categories were "upper class," "middle class," "working class," and "lower class."

Item Analysis

The items used in the analysis and some response percentages are presented in Table 1. More blacks than whites indicate that they pray privately (item 7), and they attend services more frequently than whites. Blacks are also more likely to hold a church office and spend more hours in church activities. The largest differences between blacks and whites are on the belief orthodoxy items (8,10). On each of these items, blacks are clearly more orthodox. Over 95 percent of the black sample endorse the most traditional response to the question about the existence of God and the divinity of Christ, whereas less than two, thirds of the white sample endorse the same responses. Likewise, almost 85 percent of the black sample endorse the most orthodox view of the Bible, while less than half as many whites hold the same view.

TABLE 1

Tables Used in Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Religiosity Items for Blacks and Whites.

Item

Blacks Whites Percentage

How much have the following activities (X1 through X

_s)

been influenced by your religious faith?

(percent saying great)

Xi- Friends 14.7 36.1

Xz. Political candidates vote for 4.3 14.8

(4)

TABLE 1 (continued)

Blacks Whites

Item Percentage

X3' What do in leisure time 10.6 30.0

X4· How treat family 21.2 60.3

X5· How perform job 9.2 43.4

Percent who say they

X6' Fast frequently or once in a while 33.4 38.0 X7· Pray privately, regularly, at least once a week 33.5 29.8

Pray quite often, but not at regular time 58.5 39.1

Pray on special occasions 6.8 21.1

Never Pray 1.2 9.9

X8' I know that God really exists and I have no doubts about it. 95.9 67.3

While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God. 1.5 14.2

I find myself believing in God some of the time, but

not at other times. 1.2 3.7

I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe

in a higher power of some kind. 0.7 8.6

I don't know whether there is a God and I don't

believe there is any way to find out. 0.2 1.9

None of the above represents what I believe. 0.5 4.3

X9· Jesus is the Divine Son of God and I have no doubts about it. 95.8 65.4

While I have some doubts, I feel basically that Jesus is Divine. 0.7 17.3

I feel that Jesus was a great man and very holy, but I don't feel Him to be the Son of God any more than all

of us are children of God. 0.7 6.2

I think Jesus was only a man, although an extraordinary one. 0.7 6.2

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure there was such a person as Jesus. 0.2 3.1

None of the above represents what I believe. 1.7 1.9

X lO· The Bible is the word of God and all it says is true. 84.8 41.9

The Bible was written by men inspired by God, but it

contains some human errors. 11.3 52.5

The Bible is a good book because it was written by

wise men, but God had nothing to do with it. 1.0 4.4

The Bible was written by men who lived so long ago that

it is worth very little today. 0.2 0.6

I don't know what it is. 2.7 0.6

X l1· Frequency attend services (Weekly or more) 72.9 64.1

X l2. Percent who hold Church Office 35.5 23.8

XU, (Mean) Hours spent in church activities 4.04 1.64

(5)

261

Despite the higher belief orthodoxy scores of the blacks, whites are more likely to indicate that religion affects friendship, politics, leisure activities, family relation-ships and job performance. Whites average 25.7 percentage points higher on these five items. The clear suggestion from these data is that, to paraphrase Stark (1972:490), race differences in piety are of kind, rather than degree.

DIMENSIONSOF RELIGIOSITY

Dimensions of religiosity have received attention for several years (see the recent review by Cornwallet al., 1986, but also Faulkner and Dejong, 1969; Weigert and

Thomas, 1969; Clayton, 1968, 1971; Dejonget al., 1976; and more recently, Hilty,

Morgan, and Burns, 1984; Hilty and Morgan, 1985; Hilty, Morgan, and Hartman, 1985; Hilty and Stockman, 1986). Most authors have found a variety of dimensions, though the specific ones vary from researcher to researcher. Summarizing the conclusion drawn by most researchers Mueller (1980: 1) states, "religion is far from being a monolithic, homogeneous whole."

One dimension of religiosity often used by researchers is what Lenski (1961) called doctrinal orthodoxy. Earlier Glock (1959) identified it as the ideological dimension (Glock, 1962); others have described it as belief (Faulkner and Dejong, 1966, Dejong

et al., 1976). It is essentially belief in traditional Christian concepts of God, Jesus, the

Bible, and life after death.

Two additional dimensions relate to religious practice. An important distinction between institutional and personal religious practice was recognized early by Glock and Stark (1968) who split the ritualistic dimension into ritual and devotion. This distinction has been highlighted by Cornwall and others (Cornwallet al., 1986). We

will employ a similar distinction. Allegiance to and involvement in a specific church or denomination is different from personal religious practice. The former is usually measured by church membership, attendance and participation, hours spent in church and related activities. Devotion or personal religious practice, on the other hand, is usually measured by personal devotion, prayer, fasting, and so on.

A final dimension, sometimes viewed as an outcome rather than an additional element of religiosity, is that of consequentiality. It was originally proposed as one of five dimensions by Glock (1959). Dejong and others (1976) found a dimension of personal moral consequences as well as a dimension of social consequence in their study of American and German students. Faulkner and Dejong (1966) had previously used a consequential dimension as well.

Though other dimensions have been proposed, these four (belief orthodoxy, ritual involvement, personal religious behavior, and consequentiality) have been central to most studies and will be employed here. More pragmatically, the data sets available for the present study limit the present examination to black-white differences on these dimensions.

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Most factor analytic solutions to multiple dimensions of religiosity done in the

(6)

past have assumed orthogonality of the dimensions. This constraint forces some artificaliry on the data, since multiple dimensions of religiosity would be expected to be related. Indeed, the assumption of orthogonality is inconsistent with the researchers' intent to demonstrate correlation among factors. Furthermore, some items load on more than one dimension; how one should handle such items is not easily revolved. If nonorthogonal solutions are used, interpretations are much more difficult, but probably more consistent with the respondents' religious experience. Finally, exploratory factor analysis is not designed to compare factor structures across groups. The religiosity items were initially examined with orthogonal factor analysis, and the results were consistent with the notion of separate dimensions. These results are not presented here because of the untenability of the orthogonal approach. Confirmatory factor analysis, a part of the analysis of Linear Structural Relationships - LISREL (joreskog and Sorbom, 1984), is more effective in handling all of these problems.

Hilty and his colleagues have reanalyzed several data sets collected by earlier researchers and collected additional data from several samples (Hilty, Morgan, and Burns, 1984; Hilty and Morgan, 1985; Hilty, Morgan, and Hartman, 1985; Hilty and Stockman, 1986). In general, they have found orthogonal structures to be ratherun~ satisfactory and have argued that their oblique structures give a more parsimonious explanation of the interrelationships in the data. The data analysis reported below is based on confirmatory factor analysis which allows intercorrelations between the dimensions.

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted separately for blacks and whites on the fourteen religiosity items included in both surveys. Confirmatory factor analysis provides a more elaborate test of the similarity or difference of religiosity of blacks and whites than simple item analysis. It tests whether or not the items relate to each other in the same way and whether or not underlying dimensions are the same for blacks and whites. Note that this is not the same task accomplished by Hilty and his colleagues. They were concerned about the dimensions that describe religious involvement. Our concern is thesimilarityordissimilarityof black and white religious involvement.

The general model to be examined is presented in Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis allows such models to be specified and tested to see if the hypothesized structures and relationships are consistent with the data. Figure 1 uses standard LISREL notation, namely the measured items are Xs in boxes while unmeasured variables (in this case, factors or dimensions) are the Ksis in circles. The relationship between the dimen-sions and the individual items are indicated by the Lambdas, and the relationships between the dimensions are indicated by the Phis. The error terms for the measured variables are Deltas.

This initial model assumes that each of the unmeasured dimensions (Ksis) is the principal cause of each of the observed variables (X) and that each observed variable is an indicator of only one latent dimension. Relationships among the unmeasured dimensions of religiosity are represented by Phis.

Several aspects of the model are of interest. First, whether each of the items is related to the unmeasured dimension is tested. Second, reliability of indicators can be tested by examining error variances. Third, whether each of the dimensions is related

(7)

Influenced by your religious faith How treat family Frequency Fast Pray privately (J7 FIGURE 1 Model of Religious Dimensions ~, Freq. Attend services all ~ Hold church office a12 ~ Hours spent in " church activities aU to l' :>

o

~ ~

:r:

:::j m o

~

rn ::0 m Z () m CfJ

Z

~ l'

5

o

CfJ

~

N 0\ W

(8)

to the others can be tested. Fourth, and most important for this paper, whether the factor/ dimension structure is the same for blacks as it is for whites can be evaluated. Finally, control variables such as social class can be incorporated into the analysis. We examine the model as follows. First, we estimate the factor structure for both groups together. This constrains the errors, effects of unobserved variables (the dimensions or Ksis) on items, and correlations among the dimensions to be the same for blacks and whites. Second, we estimate separate models for blacks and whites. The comparison allows us to conclude whether or not the factor structure is the same for blacks and whites. We then allow LISRELtoderive the best fitting model by freeing parameters that will maximize the fit of the model to the data. Finally, we compare the correlations between religiosity and social class for blacks and for whites.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analyses of Models

The results from the three variations of the overall model are presented in Table 2. The first model assumed the factor/dimension structure to be the same for blacks as for whites. That is, the factor loadings, correlations among dimensions, and error terms were all constrained to be the same for blacks and whites. As indicated in Table 2, the overall fit of this model is not adequate. The Chi square in this case is 258.74 and the goodness of fit measure is .798.

TABLE 2

Comparison of Models in Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Religiosity Items for Blacks and Whites

Root Mean Goodness of Square

Model Xl d.f. _P_< Fit Index Residual

I. Identical Parameters

for Blacks and Whites 258.74 150 .001 .798 .153

II. Separate Parameters

III. Structurally Different Model·

In the second model, the specifications are relaxed so that separate values for the parameters can be estimated for blacks and whites, though the overall pattern is the same. This requires that the same items be used to measure the underlying dimensions, but does not require that the strength of the relationship be the same for blacks as for whites. Furthermore, the relationships between the latent, underlying variables

(9)

265

are not required to be the same for blacks as for whites. The Chi square for this model drops to 187.55, while the goodness of fit measure increases to .881. The root square mean residual drops from .153 to .073. Both the goodness of fit index and the root mean square residual are measures of how well the models fit the data. Model II is a clear improvement over Model 1. The comparison of the two models provides a more formal test of what we observed above, that blacks have different patterns of religiosity. Item-by-item analysis had indicated that blacks are more traditional than whites on the belief/orthodoxy dimension, while whites score higher on the conse-quential dimension. Again, the results suggest that black and white differences in piety are of kind rather than degree. The difference was that strength of the relationship of the indicators to the underlying dimensions and the relationship of the dimensions to each other were allowed to vary.

The third model constrained most of the parameters for the variables to be equal for blacks and whites, but relaxed the assumption that the factor structures be parallel for both groups. This model tests a different question - whether the underlying structure (not strength of dimensions) of the dimensions differsfor whites and blacks. The question asked in this model is whether the items cluster differently for blacks than they do for whites. Items clustering differently for the two groups, or Lambdas existing for one group but not for another would, again, be evidence of the difference between white and black religion. The modification indices of the LISREL program were used

to relax those parameter constraints that would best improve the fit of the model to observed data.

As noted earlier, the blacks in the sample have a very strong, traditional belief in Jesus. Whites had higher scores on the consequential dimension. The modification index indicated Items 7, 8, 11, and 12 were related to other dimensions than originally specified by Model 1. For blacks, holding a church office was also related to the con-sequential dimension, while the item on God was related to personal religious behavior as well as belief orthodoxy.

The largest differences were on the belief-orthodoxy dimension for whites. Praying privately and frequency of church attendance loaded on the belief'Orthodoxy dimension. Further, the relationship between belief-orthodoxy and consequentiality (Phi31) was significantly and substantially stronger for whites than blacks (- .582 compared to

-.236).

When these structural changes were made, the measures of goodness of fit improved substantially. The improvement indicates that this model is better than either the fully constrained model or the model in which the estimates of all the parameters are relaxed. It is an improvement over the second model because an alternative structure of loadings of the items on the dimensions is allowed. The estimations for the Lambdas are reported in Table 3 and the relationship of the Lambdas to the Ksis for the final model can be observed there. The Phis showing correlations between the dimensions are listed in Table 4.

(10)

TABLE 3

LISREL Estimates of Relationship of Fourteen Items for Blacks and Whites to Four Underlying Dimensions of Religiosity

Ksi 1 Ksi 2 Ksi 3 Ksi4

Personal Belief Ritual

Consequential Religious Behavior Orthodoxy Involvement Blacks Whites Blacks Whites Blacks Whites Blacks Whites

Xl .787 .787 X2 .573 .573 X3 .865 .865 X4 .822 .822 X5 .878 .878 X6 .728 .728 X7 .212 .212 .505 X₈ .224 -.665 -.665 X9 -.609 -.609 X_lO -.481 -.481 Xll -.365 -.741 -.741 X12 .188 .505 .505 X₁₃ .765 .765 TABLE 4

LISREL Estimate of Interrelationships (Phis) of Dimension of Religiosity (Ksis) for Blacks and Whites

Ksi 1 Ksi 1 Consequential Blacks Whites Ksi 2 Personal Religious Behavior Blacks Whites Ksi3 Belief Orthodoxy Blacks Whites Ksi4 Ritual Involvement Blacks Whites Ksi 2 Ksi 3 Ksi 4 .576 .236 .622 .576 .582 .622 .237 .658 .237 .658 .266 .266

The moderately high relationships (Phis) between the dimensions (the Ksis) in Table 4 warrant comment. Traditional orthogonal factor analysis would not have

(11)

267

exhibited the closeness of these dimensions. The dimensions are closely interrelated with two exceptions. First, the ritual dimension is not as highly related to belief orthodoxy for either blacks or whites, as has been found in some samples. More suprising are the high relationships of all the other dimensions to the consequential dimension. The exception is that the belief orthodoxy dimension is not highly related to the con, sequential dimension for blacks. Previous researchers, using other scaling techniques, have not found the consequential dimension related to other dimensions. We have found it to be related for both the white and the black samples.

In one sense, the black-white differences we have found are relatively small. Only four of the thirty factor loadings are "misplaced" or need to be specified differently. The composition of the underlying dimensions themselves are not dramatically different. Only one additional item loads on the personal religious behavior and consequential dimensions for blacks. The largest difference between blacks and whites was that praying privately and frequency of attending services loaded on the belief-orthodoxy dimension for whites. In essence, few African survivals appear to be present in the belief structure of black religion. The structure of black religious beliefs appears to be quite similar to whites and appears to be quite American.

Nevertheless, when the item analysis is combined with the structural analysis, black and white religion appear to vary in some important ways. Blacks are clearly more traditional and orthodox than whites on ideological beliefs. Holding a church office is an important consequence of this belief orthodoxy for blacks, but not necessarily for whites. Belief in God is tied to personal religious behavior for blacks, but not for whites. Finally, the Phi between the first and third dimensions (belief orthodoxy and consequentiality) is substantially higher (- .582) for whites than blacks (- .236). Explanations for Racial Differences

Observed differences of kind in piety between blacks and whites may stem from basic differences in the functions that religion serves in the two communities. The white Protestants in the sample exhibit a traditional religious view. Belief is important; five of the fourteen items load on the belief orthodoxy dimension, whereas only three were initially expected to. Belief orthodoxy for the whites in the sample implies that one both prays and attends church. In addition, the way one acts in his or her job, during leisure time, with family and friends, even the way he or she votes, are all related to belief. This is the traditional Protestant view; salvation is based on individual faith (belief) and one's actions that follow from that faith.

Though the model for the black community is similar, it works slightly less well than it does for whites. Several reasons for this can be suggested. The items may reflect white religion better because they were written by white social scientists. On the other hand, the variance on the belief-orthodoxy items is smaller for blacks than whites, and this may attenuate the relationships between this dimension and the others. Third, item 12, holding an office, loads on the consequential dimension for blacks and may point to an organizational or community base for black religious involvement. Black religious feeling may be tied more closely to a specific church or organization than

it is for whites. This relationship may also reflect the ambivalent and enigmatic

(12)

relationship of black religious expression to support for black protest movements (see Marx, 1967, 1969; Morris, 1981; and johnson, 1985).

Still other'possible reasons exist for the differences found between blacks and whites. As indicated earlier, the two data sets were collected differently. The black data set was collected through an interview, while the white data set was collected through a mail survey.

The differential response rates may also have affected the results. Greater selection operated with the mail survey conducted among the white sample than with the interview sample obtained from the black sample. Thus whites interested in religion, primarily those more orthodox and traditional, would be expected to respond rather than those less interested. Thus any differential rate of responding would result in smaller, not larger, differences between the samples. Any true differences between blacks and whites would likely be larger than we have found. Blacks would likely still be more traditional and orthodox than whites.

As noted earlier, social class may also account for racial differences in religiosity. The relationship between subjective social class and the dimensions for blacks and whites is presented in Table 5. Other aspects of social class were examined (educa-tion, occupational status, and income), but the strongest results were obtained using subjective social class. Subjective social class was positively related to all four dimensions for blacks, but for only three of the dimensions for whites. The relationship was also slightly higher for blacks than for whites.

TABLE 5

Relationship of Subjective Social Class to Dimensions of Religiosity for Blacks and Whites

Race Blacks Whites Consequential .182 .036 Personal Religious Behavior .180 -.238 Belief Orthodoxy .083 .133 Ritual Involvement .211 .033

These correlations present one test of the secularization hypothesis that higher status leads to a decline in religiosity (for reviews of this hypothesis see Mueller and johnson, 1975; Albrecht and Heaton, 1984). No secularization effect is apparent for blacks. In fact, social class is positively related to religiosity for blacks. This result is consistent with results reported by Nelsen and Nelsen (1975:40), Beeghley, Yan Yelsor, and Bock (1981), and Taylor (1988a, 1988b).

Three of the relationships for whites show no secularization effect; the relation-ships between subjective social class and the three dimensions are positive, but weak. Furthermore, the fourth relationship is negative and is the strongest of the effects (- .238). Thus, religion and social class appear to be intertwined differently for blacks and whites. Subjective social class is positively related to religiosity for blacks, but not necessarily for whites. The magnitude of these correlations is small, however, (the

(13)

269

largest has an explained variance of less than six percent), suggesting that social class plays a very small role in the racial differences in religiosity discussed earlier.

Overall, blacks and whites share a common core of religious experience in the United States. The differences we have found are modest in comparison with the similarities. Nevertheless, the differences justify further examination of black-white religious experience. How social class within the black community affects black religious experience remains a relatively unexplored phenomenon. Additional studies, especially national ones, with additional items and dimensions focusing on black religion, would provide insight into how black and white religious experiences differ in America.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, StanL.and Tim B. Heaton. 1984. "Secularization, higher education, and religiosity."Review

of Religious Research 26:43-58.

Beeghley, Leonard, Ellen Van Velsor, and E. Wilbur Bock. 1981. "The correlates of religiosity among

black and white Americans."Sociological Quarterly 22:403-12.

Clayton, Richard R. 1968. "Religiosity in 5-0: a southern test."Social Forces 47:80-83.

_ _ _ . 1971. "5-0 or 1?"Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 10:37-40.

Clayton, Richard R. and James W. Gladden. 1974. "The five dimensions of religiosity: toward

demythologizing a sacred artifact."Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13:135-43.

Cornwall, Marie, StanL.Albrecht, Perry H. Cunningham, and Brian L.Pitcher. 1986. "The

dimen-sions of religiosity: a conceptual model with an empirical test." Reviewof Religious Research 27:226-44.

Dejong, Gordon F., Joseph E. Faulkner, and Rex H. Warland. 1976. "Dimensions of religiosity

recon-sidered: evidence from a cross-cultural study."Social Forces 54:866-89.

Dernerath,Nicholas, J., III. 1965.Social Class in American Protestantism. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Faulkner, Joseph E. and Gordon F. Dejong. 1966. "Religiosity in 5-0: an empirical analysis." Social

Forces 45:246-54.

_ _ _ . 1969. "On measuring the religious variable." Social Forces 48:263-67.

Frazier, E. Franklin. 1974.The Negro Church in America. New York: Schocken Books.

Fukuyama, Y. 1961. "The major dimensions of church membership."Reviewof Religious Research 2:154-61.

Glock, Charles Y. 1959. "The religious revival in America?," pp. 25-42 in Jane Zahn (ed.), Religion and

the Face of America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glock, Charles Y. and Rodney Stark. 1965. Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand McNally.

_ _ _ . 1968.American Piety. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goode, Erich. 1966. "Social class and church participation."American Journal of Sociology 72:102-11.

Herskovitz, Melville. 1941.The Myth of the Negro Past. New York: Harper.

Hilty, Dale M. and Rick Morgan. 1985. "Construct validation for the religious involvement inventory:

replication."Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24:75-86.

Hilty, Dale M. and Sue J. Stockman. 1986. "A covariance structure analysis of the Dejong, Faulkner,

and Warland religious involvement model."Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 25:483-93.

Hilty, Dale M., Rick Morgan, and Joan E. Burns. 1984. "King and Hunt revisited: dimensions of religious

involvement."Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23:252-62.

Hilty, Dale M. Rick Morgan, and Wilmer Hartman. 1985. "A structural equation modeling analysis

of the means, end and quest dimensions."Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24:424-36.

Hunt, Larry L.and Janet G. Hunt. 1977. "Black religion asboth opiate and inspiration of civil rights

militance: putting Marx data to the test."Social Forces 56:1-14.

Johnson, Benton. 1985. "Religion and politics in America: the last twenty years," pp. 301-316 in Phillip

E. Hammond (ed.),The Sacred in a Secular Age: Toward Revision in the Scientific Study of Religion.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Johnstone, RonaldL.1970. National Opinion Research Center survey conducted for the Lutheran Council

in the U.S.A., as reported in Ronald L.Johnstone, Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion, 2nd

(14)

ed. (1983). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[oreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom. 1984. LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood, Instrumental Variables, and Least Squares Methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

King, Morton B. 1967. "Measuring the religious variable: nine proposed dimensions."Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion 6: 173-90.

King, Morton B. and Richard A. Hunt. 1969. "Measuring the religious variable: amended findings." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 8:321-23.

_ _ _ . 1972. "Measuring the religious variable: replication."Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

11:240-51.

_ _ _ . 1975. "Measuring the religious variable: national replication."Journal for the Scientific Study

of Religion 14:13-22.

Lazerwitz, Bernard. 1962. "Membership in voluntary associations and frequency of church attendance." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2:74-84.

Lenski, Gerhard E. 1961.The Religious Factor. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

McNamara, Patrick H. and Arthur St. George. 1978. "Blessed are the downtrodden."Sociological Analysis

39:303-20.

Marx, Gary T. 1967. "Religion: opiate or inspiration of civil rights militancy among Negroes?"American

Sociological Review 32:64-72.

_ _ _ . 1969.Protest and Prejudice: A Study of Beliefin the Black Community. New York: Harper& Row.

Morris, Aldon. 1981. "Black southern student sit-in movement: an analysis of internal organization." American Sociological Review 46:744-67.

Mueller, G. H. 1980. "The dimensions of religiosity." Sociological Analysis 41:1-24.

Mueller, Charles W. and Wendell T. Johnson. 1975. "Socio-economic status and religious

participa-tion." American Sociological Review 40:785-800.

Nelsen, Hart. M. and Anne Kuesener Nelsen. 1975.Black Church in the Sixties. Lexington: University

Press of Kentucky.

Nelsen, Hart M., Thomas W. Madron, and RaythaL.Yokley. 1975. "Black religion's promethean motif:

orthodoxy and militancy."American Journal of Sociology 81:139-46.

Pinkney, Alphonso. 1975.Black Americans. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Raboteau, Albert

J.

1978.Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Rawick, George P. 1972. FromSundowntoSunup: The Making of the Black Community. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Roberts, Keith A. 1984. "Religion and social stratification: interactive process," pp. 269-323 in Keith

A. Roberts (ed.), Religion in Sociological Perspective. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Stark, Rodney. 1972. "The economics of piety: religious commitment and social class," pp. 483-503 in

Gerald W. Thielbar and Saul D. Feldman (eds.),Issues in Social Inequality. Boston: Little Brown.

Stark, Rodney and Charles Y. Glock. 1968.American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Tapp, Robert B. 1971. "Dimensions of religiosity in a post-traditional group."Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion 10:41-47.

Taylor, Robert Joseph. 1988a. "Structural determinants of religious participation among black Americans." Review of Religious Research 30: 114-25.

_ _ _ . 1988b. "Correlates of religious non-involvement among black Americans."Review of Religious

Research 30: 126-39.

Weigert, Andrew

J.

and DarwinL.Thomas. 1969. "Religiosity in SoD: a critical note." Social Forces

48:260-63.