political orientation is much more prone to change in regards to religion

political orientation is much more prone to change in regards to religion

Data on the participants was constrained to those who identified as either Democratic, Republican, or another party listed as “Other”. This was done in order to aid interpretation of results, as Democrats are largely seen as politically Liberal, Republicans as politically Conservative, and those who identify with the less dominant political parties can range in extent of their being Liberal or Conservative. While this study found the percentage of the population to be almost perfectly split between religious and non-religious, there was a much larger composition of Liberals (65%) than Conservatives (35%). This is evidence of religious orientation being a strong independent variable, as political orientation is much more prone to change in regards to religion.

In accordance with Social Identity Theory, religion provides a means to “correspond to a definition of the ‘self’ according to group characteristics, and to exaggeration of difference between own group and other groups in order to achieve a positive self-concept” (Patrikios, 2008). While both those who were registered Democrat and those registered Republican were mostly comprised of those who identified as “Christian”, those who did not identify as Christian, or any religion whatsoever, were mostly Democrat. This gives example of the group mentality of Social Identity Theory in regards to political orientation. The party affiliation changes in regards to the religious orientation, as well as a lack in any religious belief at all. A similar trend was found in regards to voting habits in regards to control over abortion and legalization of marijuana. Democrats wanted less government control over abortion, Republicans wanted more, and those whose political party was described as “Other” were in line with the Democrats.

As stated before, even though Republicans and Democrats are both mostly Christian, Democrats were also comprised of a large number of other religions and non-religious people. Religions other than Christianity, and no religion at all, shift the political orientation to a more Liberal method of voting. Results were similar in regards to the legalization of Marijuana, where Democrats and those who identified their political party as “Other”, who both have the most diverse range of the religious and non-religious, showed the greatest support for legalization, while the Republicans mostly split between full legalization and medicinal legalization. The distinction that made is that Democrats, who are comprised of a more Liberal base of varying religious and non-religious people, is much more lenient in relation to the extent of control over abortion and Marijuana legalization, while Republicans, who are mostly Conservative Christians, are the opposite. What is thus created is an “‘us’ and ‘them'” mentality, in which these participants are experiencing group identification with their peers; the participants have internalized “in-group and out-party stereotypes” (Patrikios, 2008), as well as exhibited “increased engagement in partisan behavior” (Patrikios, 2008). These alliances have strengthened the resolve of the participants, which is reflective in the manner in how they vote on these particular issues.

More evidence of this dichotomy is provided from the data in relation to often participants attend religious services, as well as how often they read religious literature. The higher the religious attendance, the more Conservative views on abortion and Marijuana, the less Liberal, and the more uncomfortable a participant would be with a candidate of a different religion. The amount of time spent reading religious literature gave almost the same results, in which participants who spent more hours studying religious literature supported more conservative views on abortion and Marijuana, were more Conservative, and more uncomfortable with a candidate of a different religion than their own. So while a particular religion in itself may not be as strongly influential in the political realm, the amount of time given to religious practice is greatly influential in effecting whether a participant is more Liberal or Conservative, and thus how they vote on key issues, or how they feel about candidates of a different religion other than their own.

The reasoning to which these results could be contributed can be ascribed as the “hierarchy of identities” of the participants; in accordance with Social Identity Theory, when the individual maintains characteristics of a group, in this case a religion or lack thereof, that individual will then internalize their own membership and see themselves as a part of the group (Appelrouth, Edles, 2008). With the participants whose religion was higher on the hierarchy, it greatly influenced their political standing, and their voting habits. This was also made apparent in regards to participant’s stance on whether prayer should be allowed and/ or mandatory in public schools. There was a significant difference between those who identified as Liberal and Conservative, with those who agreed for prayer to be allowed and/or mandatory much closer to Conservative than Liberal on a scale of 1 to 10. It should be noted however, that the number of those who support mandatory prayer in school were less than 10 participants, so while they were much more likely to be Conservative, there was also a very small number of those who agreed with mandatory prayer.

Participants who identified as Christian were also found to be much more Conservative than other religions, as well as the non-religious, and those who identified as Christian were found to believe it much more important for a candidate seeking office to be religious than those with no religion, (it was also found of those who were religious, although it was not significant). This falls in line with previous studies, including a study utilizing data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study conducted in the fall of 2006, with a follow up in the summer of the next year. In this study, it was found that two baseline candidates, one associated with the Democratic Party and one with the Republican Party, the political parties of the participants largely fell in line with those of the candidate. However, when both candidates were identified as evangelical Christians, there was a sharp increase in Republican participants who claimed they would vote for the candidate, while the participants of the Democratic Party were lower for the evangelical candidate than the baseline candidate (Campbell, et al., 2011). As this study showed, those who identified as Democrat were not only Christian, but also of other religions, and no religions at all, while those who identified as Republican were mostly Christian. The data suggests that “hierarchy of identities” among those who identify as Conservative, have ranked their religion not only as high, but as Christian. Those who identified as Democrat are comprised of a much more diverse group of participants. This study suggests that religion is indeed a driving force behind the political orientation of participants, namely for those who identify as Christian, of which Conservatives are almost solely comprised, and those who identify as another religion or no religion at all, of which Liberals are almost solely comprised. This common trend found in this study, in addition to the study just mentioned, is that the hierarchy of religious importance among Christians in particular is a strong determinant of Conservative ideology. This strongly suggests that there is a significant “in-group versus out-group” mentality, as those who are less religious fall into a more Liberal categorization.

There were limitations to this study. All of the participants were University students, which was limiting in regards to level of education, socioeconomic status, and age. What also limited the study was the amount of participants who were registered as a Republican, Democrat, or other party. The constraint to those who were registered with a political party, as well as identifying as either a Christian, non-Christian but religious, or non-religious, lessened the amount of participants greatly. If a much larger population were surveyed, it would take into account a much wider range of religions, political parties, and age cohorts, as college Universities are comprised of mostly young people, who have enough money and privilege to attend a University. Also, a greater diversity of religions would aid in providing a more thorough regression model, where instead of a three categories of religion (Christian, non-Christian, and non-religious), one could further analyze how each group of participants were measured in the religious index against the Liberal/Conservative scale and the Importance Scale of a candidate seeking office to be religious. While this study has shown a clear significance of results for those who identify as Christian, it does not show how these results might change if the participant were of another specific religion, such as Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, etc. Surveying a much more diverse populace would aid in being able to analyze particular religions, instead of group all of the non-Christian religions into one category.