Secularism, sorting, and Americans’ political knowledge

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Social Forces Pub Date : 2025-09-24 DOI:10.1093/sf/soaf150
Samuel L Perry
{"title":"Secularism, sorting, and Americans’ political knowledge","authors":"Samuel L Perry","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political knowledge, including knowledge of basic civics and current political conditions, is associated with a host of pro-democratic outcomes including institutional trust and civic and political participation. Religion is also historically associated with these outcomes, yet a link between religion and indicators of political knowledge remains underexamined. Integrating research on religion/secularism and political engagement with work on partisan sorting, I theorize self-consciously secular Americans, particularly if they are sorted politically, will exhibit the strongest grasp on basic civics and current political conditions. Analyses of data from a recent, nationally representative survey affirm my expectations. Self-identified atheists/agnostics consistently score significantly higher than religious or non-affiliated Americans on questions about basic civics and current political conditions. Interactions reveal that education helps most other religious groups catch up to atheists/agnostics on civics knowledge, but not knowledge about current politics. And on knowledge of both basic civics and current politics, atheists/agnostics’ advantage is strongest among liberals and Democrats and disappears among conservatives and Republicans. A similar pattern appears for evangelical Protestants in the opposite direction with their scores on both civics and current politics increasing significantly as they identify more with ideological conservatism, but this does not apply to partisan identity. Findings extend literatures on political knowledge, religious/secular political engagement, and partisan sorting by showing that (1) self-identified secular Americans, particularly if they are sorted, tend to be the most knowledgeable about basic civics and current political conditions, and (2) this pattern is to a weaker extent mirrored by evangelicals, another politicized religious group.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Forces","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf150","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Political knowledge, including knowledge of basic civics and current political conditions, is associated with a host of pro-democratic outcomes including institutional trust and civic and political participation. Religion is also historically associated with these outcomes, yet a link between religion and indicators of political knowledge remains underexamined. Integrating research on religion/secularism and political engagement with work on partisan sorting, I theorize self-consciously secular Americans, particularly if they are sorted politically, will exhibit the strongest grasp on basic civics and current political conditions. Analyses of data from a recent, nationally representative survey affirm my expectations. Self-identified atheists/agnostics consistently score significantly higher than religious or non-affiliated Americans on questions about basic civics and current political conditions. Interactions reveal that education helps most other religious groups catch up to atheists/agnostics on civics knowledge, but not knowledge about current politics. And on knowledge of both basic civics and current politics, atheists/agnostics’ advantage is strongest among liberals and Democrats and disappears among conservatives and Republicans. A similar pattern appears for evangelical Protestants in the opposite direction with their scores on both civics and current politics increasing significantly as they identify more with ideological conservatism, but this does not apply to partisan identity. Findings extend literatures on political knowledge, religious/secular political engagement, and partisan sorting by showing that (1) self-identified secular Americans, particularly if they are sorted, tend to be the most knowledgeable about basic civics and current political conditions, and (2) this pattern is to a weaker extent mirrored by evangelicals, another politicized religious group.
世俗主义、分类与美国人的政治知识
政治知识,包括基本的公民知识和当前的政治状况,与许多亲民主的结果有关,包括机构信任和公民和政治参与。从历史上看,宗教也与这些结果有关,但宗教与政治知识指标之间的联系仍未得到充分研究。结合对宗教/世俗主义和政治参与的研究以及对党派分类的研究,我的理论是,自觉的世俗美国人,特别是在政治上被分类的美国人,将表现出对基本公民和当前政治状况的最强把握。最近一项具有全国代表性的调查的数据分析证实了我的预期。在关于基本公民和当前政治状况的问题上,自认为无神论者/不可知论者的得分一直明显高于宗教或无宗教信仰的美国人。互动表明,教育帮助大多数其他宗教团体在公民知识方面赶上了无神论者/不可知论者,但没有赶上当前的政治知识。在基本公民和当前政治知识方面,无神论者/不可知论者在自由派和民主党人中优势最大,在保守派和共和党人中优势消失。福音派新教徒也出现了类似的模式,他们在公民和当前政治方面的得分显著上升,因为他们更认同意识形态上的保守主义,但这并不适用于党派认同。研究结果扩展了关于政治知识、宗教/世俗政治参与和党派分类的文献,表明:(1)自我认同的世俗美国人,特别是如果他们被分类,往往对基本公民和当前政治状况最了解;(2)这种模式在另一个政治化的宗教团体福音派中反映的程度较弱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Forces
Social Forces SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Established in 1922, Social Forces is recognized as a global leader among social research journals. Social Forces publishes articles of interest to a general social science audience and emphasizes cutting-edge sociological inquiry as well as explores realms the discipline shares with psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. Social Forces is published by Oxford University Press in partnership with the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信