I saw this from Tyler Cowen:
The middle part of America is more religious than the South.
When Gallup ranked every U.S. state by its religiosity, states in the South took nine of the top ten spots, with South Carolina at fifth. These results were based on self-reported identification, meaning that a person’s faith was measured by what they told a stranger on the phone. Actual church-attendance rates tell a different story. Thanks to data compiled by the Association of Religious Data Archives, we have a very good sense of how many people in a given locale regularly attend church. By this attendance metric, the geographic heart of American religiosity isn’t the Southeast, but the middle part of the country — from Texas and Oklahoma through Iowa and the Dakotas.
Interesting. Here’s figure 6.3 from Red State Blue State, showing average religious attendance (as measured on a 1-5 scale from “never” to “more than once per week,” data from the 2000 and 2004 Annenberg surveys:
Comparing to what Vance wrote: Yes, Texas and Oklahoma have high reported rates of religious attendance, and Texas and Oklahoma are not in the Southeast, but they are often counted as part of the South. And Iowa and the Dakotas also have high rates of reported religious attendance. Not as high as Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas, but they’re up there. Reported religious attendance is not so high in some other states in the middle of the country, such as Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois, and it’s lowest in New England and the far west.
Following Vance’s recommendation, I googled Association of Religious Data Archives and I came across this map which I think is what he was talking about:
This data source describes “adherents” as:
All members, including full members, their children and the estimated number of other participants who are not considered members; for example, the “baptized,” “those not confirmed,” “those not eligible for Communion,” “those regularly attending services,” and the like.
Of the 236 reporting groups, 49 reported members and adherents; 37 reported adherents only; 63 reported members only; four suggested a method for estimating adherents without reporting members; and 83 reported only congregation locations. Of the 63 that reported members only, four suggested their own adherent estimating processes, which we used to calculate adherents for them. For those 59 groups that reported members but did not report adherents nor suggest a method for computing them, we estimated total adherents for each county by dividing membership by the population at least 14 years of age and then applied this percentage to the Census 2010 100-percent count for the county.
This is a little different from what I graphed in that the data come from the congregations, not from survey respondents, also I was giving average attendance whereas here it’s a 0/1 variable. At this point I wouldn’t say that either chart is wrong; they are presenting two parts of the larger story.
I do wonder whether the statistics used in the above map are over-counting Catholics. I say this because of the dark colors of heavily Catholic states such as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, etc. Also this from the documentation:
How were Catholics counted?
For the 2010 study, each diocese was asked to provide, by parish or mission, their number of registered households, registered individuals, infant baptisms within the past year, deaths within the past year, and weekly attendance. This was part of an effort to provide a more congregational-based definition comparable to those of other religious bodies in the study. Put another way, the number of “adherents” is roughly equivalent to those who are known in some way to each parish or mission.
Altogether, this work enumerated nearly 59 million Catholics known in some way to each parish or mission in the United States. This number is substantially below two common measures of the Catholic population in the United States: survey data and The Official Catholic Directory (OCD). First, national surveys suggest that over 75 million Americans self-identify as Catholic. However, only 20 percent of respondents on the 2010 General Social Survey (GSS) were Catholics who attend at least once a year. When applied to the population as a whole, the estimated 62 million Catholics who attend at least once a year is reasonably close to the 59 million counted in the 2010 U.S. Religious Census. Second, The Official Catholic Directory (OCD) for 2010 indicated a Catholic population of 65,581,808 in the 50 states and District of Columbia. Yet there is reason to believe that the means used to generate the OCD number varies by diocese, with some dioceses relying on survey estimates of the Catholic population rather than parish-level statistics. For more information on the Catholic count, visit http://www.glenmary.org/rcms2010.
At first this sounds like everything’s lining up—the total number in their count is comparable to the number of survey respondents who say they were Catholic and attend at least once a year. But then you remember that for other religions, these counts are much less than what was reported on surveys. So this suggests to me that, relative to other religions, Catholics are overcounted in the census that was used to create the above map. Given the shading of Utah, I wonder about Mormons too—they’re another highly centralized church.
In any case, if you divide the country into 4 regions: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, then religious attendance rates—however measured—will be highest in the South (including Texas and Oklahoma). Yes, the rate in the middle of the country looks high—but remember that not many people live in North and South Dakota. Lots and lots of midwesterners live in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois, which have more moderate rates of church membership. (Illinois is on the high side but remember the Catholics.)
So . . . when comparing states or regions, I’d stick with my scatterplot above. I agree that survey responses on religious attendance are problematic, and I like the idea of bringing in data from other sources, but I think it’s too tricky to believe the comparisons between states and regions given the non-uniformity of reporting. And, even by that measure, “the middle part of America” (if it includes the Midwestern states of Ohio, Michigan, etc.” is not more religious than the South.
Just to be clear: I think the religious attendance data collected by the Association of Religious Data Archives are great; you just have to be careful with the interpretation.
P.S. And, yes, I could make my scatterplot as a map and make that other organization’s map into a scatterplot. I just didn’t feel like putting the time into grabbing the data and creating those new graphs. My bad for my file system being such a mess.
P.P.S. Seth Stephens-Davidowitz sends along this map of Google searches for “church”:
Not the world’s most evocative color scheme, but you get the picture. Seth reports that maps of “Bible” and “God” are almost identical.
And, from my work with Yotam Margalit, a map showing the relative proportion of survey respondents, by state, who say they know anyone who attends church regularly:
Blue is high, orange is low, and of course you’ll see a lot of variation in the small states.
Overall, though, the message is that church attendance rates are high in the South-except-for-Florida. I think the Tyler Cowen quote that led off this post was mistaken, a product of the misreading of a map plus artifacts in data collection.