Previous research demonstrates that religion plays a significant role in understanding attitudes and behavior regarding the environment. In addition, studies also demonstrate value change across cohorts and time in postmaterialist attitudes. However, limited empirical evidence exists that considers both simultaneously. The advantage of the approach relied on here is that the model can estimate “true” change in “proenvironmental” attitude levels within each religious group by cohort and period while also testing the role of compositional effects on these trends. Our analyses demonstrate that support for environmental spending is the result of period effects rather than cohort-based change. Moreover, although support for environmental spending differs among religious denominations, changes are the result of periodic shifts that are experienced by all denominations. Thus, without any unique denominational shifts in support for environmental spending, the so-called “greening” of Christianity is not supported here.
AbramsonP. R.InglehartR. (1987). Generational replacement and the future of post-materialist values. The Journal of Politics, 49, 231-241.
2.
AgliardoM. (2014). The U.S. Catholic response to climate change. In VeldmanR. G.SzaszA.Haluza-DelayR. (Eds.), How the world’s religions are responding to climate change: Social scientific investigations (pp. 174-192). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AllittP. (1998). American Catholics and the environment, 1960-1995. Catholic Historical Review, 84, 263-280. doi:10.2307/25025211
BielA.NilssonA. (2005). Religious values and environmental concern: Harmony and detachment. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 178-191. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00297.x
6.
BossoC. J.GuberD. L. (2006). Maintaining presence: Environmental advocacy and the permanent campaign. In VigN.KraftM. (Eds.), Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century (6th ed., pp. 78-99). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
7.
BoydH. H. (1999). Christianity and the environment in the American public. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 36-44.
8.
ButtelF. H. (1979). Age and environmental concern: A multivariate analysis. Youth & Society, 10, 237-256.
9.
CarrW. A.PattersonM.YungL.SpencerD. (2012). The faithful skeptics: Evangelical religious beliefs and perceptions of climate change. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 6, 276-299. doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v6i3.276
10.
ClarkA. K. (2015). Rethinking the decline in social capital. American Politics Research, 43(4), 1-33. doi:10.1177/1532673X9302100204
11.
ClementsJ. M.McCrightA. M.XiaoC. (2014). Green Christians? An empirical examination of environmental concern within the U.S. general public. Organization & Environment, 27, 85-102. doi:10.1177/1086026613495475
12.
DanielsD. P.KrosnickJ. A.TichyM. P.TompsonT. (2012). Public opinion on environmental policy in the United States. In KraftM.KamienieckiS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of U.S. environmental policy (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
DownsA.WeigertA. (1999). Scientific and religious convergence toward an environmental typology? A search for scientific constructs in papal and episcopal documents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 45-58. doi:10.2307/1387583
14.
DunlapR. E. (1991). Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. Society & Natural Resources, 4, 285-312. doi:10.1080/08941929109380761
15.
DunlapR. E. (1995). Public opinion and environmental policy. In LesterJ. P. (Ed.), Environmental politics and policy: Theories and evidence (2nd ed., pp. 63-114). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
16.
FirebaughG. (1997). Analyzing repeated surveys (SAGE University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, No. 07-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
GreeleyA. (1993). Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 19-28. doi:10.2307/1386911
GuthJ. L.GreenJ. C.KellstedtL. A.SmidtC. E. (1995). Faith and the environment: Religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 364-382. doi:10.2307/2111617
20.
HaysS. P. (1987). Beauty, health, and permanence: Environmental politics in the United States 1955-1985. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HonnoldJ. A. (1984). Age and environmental concern some specification of effects. The Journal of Environmental Education, 16, 4-9. doi:10.1080/00958964.1984.9942695
22.
InglehartR. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
JenningsM. K.NiemiR. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
24.
JonesR. E.DunlapR. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time?Rural Sociology, 57, 28-47. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00455.x
25.
JonesR. P.CoxD.Navarro-RiveraJ. (2014). Believers, sympathizers, & skeptics: Why Americans are conflicted about climate change, environmental policy, and science: Findings from the PRRI/AAR religion, values, and Climate Change Survey. Retrieved from http://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-Climate-Change-FINAL1-1.pdf
26.
KanagyC. L.HumphreyC. R.FirebaughG. (1994). Surging environmentalism: Changing public opinion or changing publics?Social Science Quarterly, 75, 804-819.
27.
KanagyC. L.NelsenH. M. (1995). Religion and environmental concern: Challenging the dominant assumptions. Review of Religious Research, 37, 33-45. doi:10.2307/3512069
28.
KanagyC. L.WillitsF. K. (1993). A “greening” of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 674-683.
29.
KaplanM. S. (2010). Will religions guide us on our dangerous journey? In MooreK. D.NelsonM. P. (Eds.), Moral ground: Ethical action for a planet in peril (pp. 263-266). San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press.
30.
KearnsL. (1996). Saving the creation: Christian environmentalism in the United States. Sociology of Religion, 57, 55-70. doi:10.2307/3712004
31.
KellstedtL. A.SmidtC. E.KellstedtP. M. (1991). Religious tradition, denomination, and commitment: White Protestants and the 1988 election. In GuthJ. L.GreenJ. C. (Eds.), The bible and the ballot box: Religion and politics in the 1988 election (pp. 207-226). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
32.
KrechS.III. (2005). American Indians as “first ecologists.” In TaylorB. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion and nature (Vol. 1, pp. 42-45). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
33.
LeiserowitzA.KatesR.ParrisT. (2006). Sustainability values, attitudes and behaviors: A review of multi-national and global trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 413-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102505.133552
LowryD. (2009). Age, the life course, and environmental justice. Environmental Justice, 2, 109-116. doi:10.1089/env.2009.0002
36.
MannheimK. (1952). The problem of generations. In KeczkemetiP. (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276-322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
MayerW. G. (1993). The changing American mind: How and why American public opinion changed between 1960 and 1988. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
MillerA. H.WattenbergM. P. (1984). Politics from the pulpit: Religiosity and the 1980 elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 301-317. doi:10.1093/poq/48.1B.301
39.
MusilR. K. (2014). Behind the wall: American religion and climate change. In SarnoffJ. D. (Ed.), Research handbook on intellectual property and climate change (pp. 158-171). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
40.
National Association of Evangelicals. (1990). Stewardship: All for God’s glory. Retrieved from http://nae.net/stewardship/
41.
PampelF. C.HunterL. M. (2012). Cohort change, diffusion, and support for environmental spending in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 118, 420-448. doi:10.1086/666506
PlochD. R.HastingsD. W. (1994). Graphic presentations of church attendance using General Social Survey data. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 16-33. doi:10.2307/1386634
45.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46.
ScruggsL.BenegalS. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession?Global Environmental Change, 22, 505-515. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.002
47.
SmithB. G.JohnsonB. (2010). The liberalization of young evangelicals: A research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 351-360. doi:10.1111/j.1468-59
48.
SteenslandB.ParkJ. Z.RegnerusM. D.RobinsonL. D.WilcoxW. B.WoodberryR. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291-318. doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.291
49.
TaylorB. (2011). Toward a robust scientific investigation of the “religion” variable in the quest for sustainability. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 5, 253-262. doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v5i3.253
50.
TaylorB. (2016). The Greening of Religion Hypothesis (Part One): From Lynn White, Jr. and claims that religions can promote environmentally destructive attitudes and behaviors to assertions they are becoming environmentally friendly. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 10, 268-305. doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v10i3.29010
51.
TaylorB.Van WierenG.ZalehaB. D. (2016a). The Greening of Religion Hypothesis (Part Two): Assessing the data from Lynn White, Jr, to Pope Francis. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 10, 306-378. doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v10i3.29011
52.
TaylorB.Van WierenG.ZalehaB. D. (2016b). Lynn White Jr. and the greening-of-religion hypothesis. Conservation Biology, 30, 1000-1009. doi:10.1111/cobi.12735
53.
VeldmanR. G.SzaszA.Haluza-DelayR. (2012). Introduction: Climate change and religion—A review of existing research. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 6, 255-275. doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v6i3.255
54.
VeldmanR. G.SzaszA.Haluza-DeLayR. (2014). Social science, religions, and climate change. In VeldmanR. G.SzaszA.Haluza-DeLayR. (Eds.), How the world’s religions are responding to climate change: Social scientific investigations (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
WhiteL.Jr. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155, 1203-1207. doi:10.1126/science.155.3767.1203
56.
WilcoxC. (1990). Religion and politics among white evangelicals: The impact of religious variables on political attitudes. Review of Religious Research, 32, 27-42. doi:10.2307/3511325
57.
Wray-LakeL.FlanaganC. A.OsgoodD. W. (2010). Examining trends in adolescent environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors across three decades. Environment and Behavior, 42, 61-85. doi:10.1177/0013916509335163
58.
WuthnowR. (1988). The restructuring of American religion: Society and faith since World War II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1177/000312240807300202
59.
YangY. (2006). Bayesian inference for hierarchical age-period-cohort models of repeated cross-section survey data. Sociological Methodology, 36, 39-74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2006.00174.x
60.
YangY. (2008). Social inequalities in happiness in the United States, 1972 to 2004: An age-period-cohort analysis. American Sociological Review, 73, 204-226. doi:10.1177/000312240807300202
61.
YangY.LandK. C. (2006). A mixed models approach to the age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys, with an application to data on trends in verbal test scores. Sociological Methodology, 36, 75-97. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2006.00175.x
62.
YangY.LandK. C. (2008). Age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys: Fixed or random effects?Sociological Methods & Research, 36, 297-326. doi:10.1177/0049124106292360
63.
YangY.Schulhofer-WohlS.FuW. J.LandK. C. (2008). The intrinsic estimator for age-period-cohort analysis: What it is and how to use it. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1697-1736. doi:10.1086/587154
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
