Religion is unique among the characteristics treated legally and socially as a protected class in the United States, as it is seen as more changeable than characteristics like age or race. The research presented here asks three questions. First, what shapes whether someone sees religion as changeable? Second, how does the perceived changeability of religion compare to other characteristics? Third, does the perceived changeability of religion affect public support for religion as a protected class? Using data from an online survey of U.S. adults, our analysis finds that religion is seen as the most changeable characteristic of those measured, and that personal religiosity is negatively associated with seeing religion as changeable. Furthermore, we find that perceptions of religion as changeable are negatively associated with support for religion as a protected class. This finding is moderated by personal religiosity, such that the association is stronger among the non-religious.
AngermeyerMatthias C.HolzingerAnitaCartaMauro G.SchomerusGeorg. 2011. “Biogenetic Explanations and Public Acceptance of Mental Illness: Systematic Review of Population Studies.” The British Journal of Psychiatry199(5):367–72. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.085563.
2.
BannatyneAmy JeanAbelLisa Marie. 2015. “Can We Fight Stigma with Science? The Effect of Aetiological Framing on Attitudes towards Anorexia Nervosa and the Impact on Volitional Stigma.” Australian Journal of Psychology67(1):38–46. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12062.
3.
CareyAnne. 2018. “Political Ideology as a Limited Protected Class under Federal Title VII Antidiscrimination Law.” Journal of Law and Policy26(2):637–66.
4.
CasillasChristopher J.EnnsPeter K.WohlfarthPatrick C.2011. “How Public Opinion Constrains the US Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science55(1):74–88. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00485.x.
5.
DillonMicheleWinkPaul. 2007. In the Course of a Lifetime: Tracing Religious Belief, Practice, and Change. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
6.
DouglasBenjamin D.EwellPatrick J.BrauerMarkus. 2023. “Data Quality in Online Human-Subjects Research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA.” PLoS One18(3):e0279720. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279720.
7.
EyalPeerDavidRothschildAndrewGordonZakEverndenEkaterinaDamer. 2021. “Data Quality of Platforms and Panels for Online Behavioral Research.” Behavior Research Methods54(1):1643–62. doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3.
8.
FinkeRogerStarkRodney. 2005. The Churching of America: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
9.
Frias-NavarroDoloresMonterde-i-BortHectorPascual-SolerMarcosBadenes-RiberaLaura. 2015. “Etiology of Homosexuality and Attitudes toward Same-Sex Parenting: A Randomized Study.” The Journal of Sex Research52(2):151–61. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.802757.
10.
HaywardR. DavidKrauseNeal. 2013. “Patterns of Change in Religious Service Attendance across the Life Course: Evidence from a 34-Year Longitudinal Study.” Social Science Research42(6):1480–89. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.06.010.
11.
HerbergWill. 1983 [1955]. Protestant – Catholic – Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
IannacconeLaurence R.1992. “Religious Markets and the Economics of Religion.” Social Compass39(1):123–31. doi:10.1177/003776892039001012.
13.
Ingersoll-DaytonBeritKrauseNealMorganDavid. 2002. “Religious Trajectories and Transitions over the Life Course.” The International Journal of Aging and Human Development55(1):51–70. doi:10.2190/297Q-MRMV-27TE-VLFK.
14.
JoslynMark R.Haider-MarkelDonald P.2016. “Genetic Attributions, Immutability, and Stereotypical Judgments: An Analysis of Homosexuality.” Social Science Quarterly97(2):376–90. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.802757.
15.
KelleyHarold H.MichelaJohn L.1980. “Attribution Theory and Research.” Annual Review of Psychology31(1):457–501. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325.
16.
LandénMikaelInnalaSune. 2002. “The Effect of a Biological Explanation on Attitudes towards Homosexual Persons. A Swedish National Sample Study.” Nordic Journal of Psychiatry56(3):181–86. doi:10.1080/080394802317607156.
17.
LehmanDerekSherkatDarren E.2018. “Measuring Religious Identification in the United States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion57(4):779–94. doi:10.1111/jssr.12543.
18.
LevayKevin E.JeremyFreeseDruckmanJames N.2016. “The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples.” Sage Open6(1):2158244016636433. doi:10.1177/2158244016636433.
19.
McCarthyJustin. 2014. “Americans’ Views on Origins of Homosexuality Remain Split.” Gallup, May28. Retrieved September12, 2024 (news.gallup.com).
20.
MehtaSharan KaurScheitleChristopher P.EcklundElaine Howard. 2019. “Can Religiosity be Explained by ‘Brain Wiring’? An Analysis of US Adults’ Opinions.” Religions10(586):1–12. doi:10.3390/rel10100586.
21.
MurchieJudsonPangJindong. 2018. “Rental Housing Discrimination across Protected Classes: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment.” Regional Science and Urban Economics73(1):170–79. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2018.10.003.
22.
PescosolidoBernice A.MartinJack K.LongJ. ScottMedinaTait R.PhelanJo C.LinkBruce G.2010. ““A Disease Like Any Other”? A Decade of Change in Public Reactions to Schizophrenia, Depression, and Alcohol Dependence.” American Journal of Psychiatry167(11):1321–30. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09121743.
23.
PutnamRobert D.CampbellDavid E.2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
24.
ScheitleChristopher P.2010. Beyond the Congregation: The World of Christian Nonprofits. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
SchneiderStephen P.SmithKevin B.HibbingJohn R.2018. “Genetic Attributions: Sign of Intolerance or Acceptance?”The Journal of Politics80(3):1023–27. doi:10.1086/696860.
SigalowEmily. 2016. “Towards a Sociological Framework of Religious Syncretism in the United States.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion84(4):1029–55. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfw033.
28.
SloaneJessica LeighRobillardLaurance Madeleine. 2018. “Factors Affecting Heterosexual Attitudes to Same-Sex Marriage in Australia.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy15(1):290–301. doi:10.1007/s13178-017-0276-y.
29.
StrawnKelley D.2019. “What’s Behind the “Nones-Sense”? Change over Time in Factors Predicting Likelihood of Religious Nonaffiliation in the United States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion58(3):707–24. doi:10.1111/jssr.12609.
30.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2024. “Hate Crimes: Laws and Policies.” Retrieved March20, 2024 (www.justice.gov).
31.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2024. “Who is Protected from Employment Discrimination.” Retrieved March20, 2024 (www.eeoc.gov).
32.
VoasDavidChavesMark. 2018. “Even Intense Religiosity is Declining in the United States.” Sociological Science5(1):694–710. doi:10.15195/v5.a29.
33.
ZwickertKristyRiegerElizabeth. 2013. “Stigmatizing Attitudes towards Individuals with Anorexia Nervosa: An Investigation of Attribution Theory.” Journal of Eating Disorders1(5):1–10. doi:10.1186/2050-2974-1-5.
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.
