IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v89y2008i3p665-683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pulpits Versus Ivory Towers: Socializing Agents and Evolution Attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Donald P. Haider‐Markel
  • Mark R. Joslyn

Abstract

Objective. Although debate concerning the theory of evolution is part of an ongoing U.S. dialogue over the proper role of religion in society, academics have provided little in the way of systematic understanding of public opinion on this issue. Important questions, such as the relative influence of socializing agents—religion and education—in shaping attitudes on evolution remain unanswered. Building on socialization and cognitive accessibility theories, we offer a framework for predicting public opinion on human origins and the teaching of evolution in public schools. Methods. We model attitudes on evolution and related policy through analysis of data from a 2005 national survey of U.S. adults. Results. Our analysis suggests that religion and education are key predictors of opinion, but that gender, partisanship, and ideology also play an important role. Conclusion. The socializing agent of religion outweighs the effect of education on attitudes related to evolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald P. Haider‐Markel & Mark R. Joslyn, 2008. "Pulpits Versus Ivory Towers: Socializing Agents and Evolution Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(3), pages 665-683, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:89:y:2008:i:3:p:665-683
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00553.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00553.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00553.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anders Biel & Andreas Nilsson, 2005. "Religious Values and Environmental Concern: Harmony and Detachment," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 86(1), pages 178-191, March.
    2. Laura R. Olson & Wendy Cadge & James T. Harrison, 2006. "Religion and Public Opinion about Same‐Sex Marriage," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(2), pages 340-360, June.
    3. Kenneth Mulligan, 2006. "Pope John Paul II and Catholic Opinion Toward the Death Penalty and Abortion," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(3), pages 739-753, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew L. Whitehead, 2014. "Politics, Religion, Attribution Theory, and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Unions," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(3), pages 701-718, September.
    2. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    3. Maryam Dilmaghani, 2018. "Which is greener: secularity or religiosity? Environmental philanthropy along religiosity spectrum," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 477-502, April.
    4. Cristina Gómez-Román & Maria Luisa Lima & Gloria Seoane & Mónica Alzate & Marcos Dono & José-Manuel Sabucedo, 2020. "Testing Common Knowledge: Are Northern Europeans and Millennials More Concerned about the Environment?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Roberto Balado-Naves & Sara Suarez-Fernandez, 2023. "Residential water demand: Gender differences in water consumption," Efficiency Series Papers 2023/06, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
    6. Jinhua Cui & Hoje Jo & Manuel Velasquez, 2015. "The Influence of Christian Religiosity on Managerial Decisions Concerning the Environment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 203-231, November.
    7. Jackman, Mahalia, 2019. "Religion, contact and ambivalent attitudes towards the rights of gays and lesbians in Barbados," SocArXiv 528bt, Center for Open Science.
    8. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2016. "Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1273-1298, September.
    9. Arnold Fleischmann & Laura Moyer, 2009. "Competing Social Movements and Local Political Culture: Voting on Ballot Propositions to Ban Same‐Sex Marriage in the U.S. States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(1), pages 134-149, March.
    10. David A. Gay & John P. Lynxwiler & Patrick Smith, 2015. "Religiosity, Spirituality, and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, August.
    11. Brian F. Harrison & Melissa R. Michelson, 2015. "God and Marriage: The Impact of Religious Identity Priming on Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1411-1423, November.
    12. Forman-Rabinovici, Aliza & Sommer, Udi, 2018. "An impediment to gender Equality?: Religion’s influence on development and reproductive policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 48-58.
    13. Morrison, Mark & Duncan, Roderick & Parton, Kevin & Sherley, Chris, 2013. "The Relationship between Religious Persuasion and Climate Change Attitudes in Australia," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152147, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Parakhonyak, Alexey & Popov, Sergey V, 2019. "Same-Sex Marriage, The Great Equalizer," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2019/2, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    15. Bullini Orlandi, Ludovico & Febo, Valentina & Perdichizzi, Salvatore, 2022. "The role of religiosity in product and technology acceptance: Evidence from COVID-19 vaccines," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    16. Gouveia, Filipe & Nilsson, Therese & Berggren, Niclas, 2020. "Religiosity and discrimination against same-sex couples: The case of Portugal's rental market," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    17. Andrew L. Whitehead, 2010. "Sacred Rites and Civil Rights: Religion's Effect on Attitudes Toward Same‐Sex Unions and the Perceived Cause of Homosexuality," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(1), pages 63-79, March.
    18. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Do Worldviews Matter? Post-materialist, Environmental, and Scientific/Technological Worldviews and Support for Agricultural Biotechnology Applications," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(8), pages 1047-1063, December.
    19. Darren E. Sherkat & Kylan Mattias De Vries & Stacia Creek, 2010. "Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same‐Sex Marriage," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(1), pages 80-98, March.
    20. Robert Postic & Elizabeth Prough, 2014. "That’s Gay! Gay as a Slur Among College Students," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:89:y:2008:i:3:p:665-683. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.