Skip to content
Contents
The Public Mind

    Type to search. Planned chapters match by title only.

    Chapter 9.1

    The god gap in America

    The Democratic vote gap between seldom and frequent attenders rose from 5.5 points in the ANES studies of 1972 to 1988 to 21.8 points in those of 2008 to 2020 and was 27.7 points in the 2024 CES.

    DraftFigures and numbers may change as the analysis is rebuilt.what is still being checked

    Still open: the ANES vote gap is not split by survey mode, the design checks cover the GSS only, and race and tradition are separated only in three views of one figure. Black Protestants, Latinos and non-Christian faiths are left to the chapter on religious tradition and race.

    Among voters who reported a choice between the two major-party candidates in the 2024 Cooperative Election Study (CES), those who attend religious services a few times a year or never voted Democratic at a rate 27.7 (95% CI 26.0 to 29.3)27.7 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 26.0 to 29.3n39,057Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study pointsPercentage pointThe unit for the difference between two percentages. A change from one share to another is stated in points, not in percent, so that absolute and relative change are not confused. above those who attend weekly or more. This chapter calls that difference between seldom and frequent attenders the god gap. In the American National Election Studies (ANES) of 1972 to 1988 the same gap was 5.55.5 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 2.9 to 8.1n5,572Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodANES studies of 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points, and in those of 2008 to 2020 it was 21.821.8 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 19.5 to 24.1n12,996Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodANES studies of 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points. The chapter follows the gap from the vote to party identification and to ideology, where the measure is a slope of ideology on attendance, and compares the United States with Europe and the rest of the world. In the General Social Survey (GSS), party identification accounts for 46% (95% CI 33% to 67%)46% percent of the rise in the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the rise in the slope net of party to the rise in the raw slope; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 33% to 67%n17,849Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey of the rise in that slope between the in-person surveys of 1974 to 1978 and those of 2010 to 2018.

    Frequent attenders go to services weekly or nearly weekly, and seldom attenders go a few times a year or never. The ANES records attendance in three categories only, so the other surveys are cut to match as closely as their items allow: the CES has no nearly-weekly answer, so its frequent group is weekly or more.Attendance is self-reported, so each group is defined by how respondents answer and not by a count of visits. The cut is the same in the ANES and the GSS and one answer narrower in the CES, and the levels of the groups are compared across surveys only where the text says so. A gap is the Democratic share of the two-party vote among seldom attenders minus the share among frequent attenders, in points, so a positive gap means that seldom attenders voted more Democratic. It describes who votes for whom and does not say why. A pooled estimate combines the respondents of several studies into one estimate.Every interval is a 95% confidence intervalConfidence intervalA range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise.. Shares use the Kish effective sample sizeEffective sample sizeThe number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is. [1] and treat the weightedSurvey weightsNumbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight. sample as a simple random sample, which leaves out strata and clusters and can move an interval either way, and they describe sampling error within one survey and not differences between surveys. The CES is an opt-in online panel, so its respondents chose to join; the same formula is used for it, and its interval does not cover the error that comes from how respondents were recruited. Studies of American party politics through the 1990s described a widening division between religious traditionalists and seculars in party attachments [2], and a later account of American religion documented polarization between religious conservatives and secular liberals [3]. The sections below measure that division in several surveys.

    The ANES vote gap has been above zero since 1992

    Figure 1 plots the gap in every presidential year. In the ANES it was 10.3 (95% CI 5.3 to 15.3)10.3 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 5.3 to 15.3n1,389Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod1972SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 1972, 0.1 (95% CI −6.5 to 6.6)0.1 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI −6.5 to 6.6n849Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod1980SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1980, an interval that includes zero, 11.3 (95% CI 6.2 to 16.5)11.3 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 6.2 to 16.5n1,429Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod1992SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1992 and 21.9 (95% CI 18.2 to 25.7)21.9 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 18.2 to 25.7n5,673Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020. The interval lies above zero in 88 countEstimandcount of studies in which the 95% interval of the attendance gap lies above zeroWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1992 to 2020Period1992-2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 88 countEstimandcount of studiesWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1992 to 2020Period1992-2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies from 1992 on, and it includes zero in 33 countEstimandcount of studies in which the 95% interval of the attendance gap includes zeroWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1980 to 1988Period1980-1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies, those of 1980, 1984 and 1988. Pooled over 1972 to 1988 the ANES gap is 5.5 (95% CI 2.9 to 8.1)5.5 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 2.9 to 8.1n5,572Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodANES studies of 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points, and pooled over 1992 to 2004 it is 13.0 (95% CI 9.7 to 16.2)13.0 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 9.7 to 16.2n4,005Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodANES studies of 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points.

    Figure 1

    In the ANES the Democratic vote gap between seldom and frequent attenders included zero in 1980, 1984 and 1988, and in the 2024 CES it was 27.7 points

    Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders (a few times a year or never) minus frequent attenders (weekly or nearly weekly, and weekly or more in the CES), reported voters, percentage points, 95% intervals; ANES 1972 to 2020 and CES 2008 to 2024

    Show data
    Data for In the ANES the Democratic vote gap between seldom and frequent attenders included zero in 1980, 1984 and 1988, and in the 2024 CES it was 27.7 points
    SampleSurveyYearGap (points)LowerUpperSeldom, Democratic share (%)Frequent, Democratic share (%)Seldom votersFrequent voters
    All votersANES197210.35.315.340.630.3705684
    All votersANES19767.51.513.553.546.0536578
    All votersANES19800.1−6.56.638.838.7441408
    All votersANES19845.2−0.310.843.037.8621580
    All votersANES19882.1−4.18.247.145.1522497
    All votersANES199211.36.216.553.442.0745684
    All votersANES199614.67.721.561.346.7459496
    All votersANES200014.97.921.958.443.5453481
    All votersANES200412.64.520.755.943.3371316
    All votersANES200821.114.427.862.241.2666600
    All votersANES201220.516.224.861.240.82,1981,543
    All votersANES201623.818.928.762.038.21,432884
    All votersANES202021.918.225.762.340.43,9501,723
    All votersCES200825.523.927.163.437.913,1478,021
    All votersCES201227.325.728.962.335.022,39711,984
    All votersCES201618.917.420.456.937.926,47110,902
    All votersCES202023.522.124.960.036.530,08010,434
    All votersCES202427.726.029.357.629.929,6429,415
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES19726.31.111.536.430.1604677
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES19764.5−1.810.850.646.1450570
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES19800.6−6.57.739.438.8340402
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES19842.1−3.88.039.537.3484568
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES1988−1.7−8.24.843.044.7407492
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES19928.32.514.249.841.5488643
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES199615.77.923.561.245.5301469
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES20009.41.317.653.544.0289458
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES200411.01.420.655.144.1211292
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES200816.48.524.357.340.9394568
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES201214.79.519.955.440.71,2071,348
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES201615.39.521.252.937.5759797
    Protestant and Catholic votersANES202011.87.216.352.640.91,9381,403
    Protestant and Catholic votersCES200818.716.620.751.933.36,4155,786
    Protestant and Catholic votersCES201215.313.517.250.635.311,83310,669
    Protestant and Catholic votersCES20169.07.310.845.336.312,6369,457
    Protestant and Catholic votersCES202011.09.312.745.734.812,4318,674
    Protestant and Catholic votersCES202413.211.215.242.229.012,2217,759
    White non-Hispanic votersANES19729.94.815.035.825.9640622
    White non-Hispanic votersANES19768.32.114.649.641.2486523
    White non-Hispanic votersANES19803.5−3.210.333.630.1384346
    White non-Hispanic votersANES19849.03.214.839.430.4545483
    White non-Hispanic votersANES19886.5−0.113.142.536.0447400
    White non-Hispanic votersANES199217.912.323.450.132.2640542
    White non-Hispanic votersANES199622.515.029.957.334.8397386
    White non-Hispanic votersANES200018.811.126.454.936.1377383
    White non-Hispanic votersANES200418.99.728.051.532.7283230
    White non-Hispanic votersANES200828.820.936.755.426.6410284
    White non-Hispanic votersANES201229.324.434.153.924.71,460874
    White non-Hispanic votersANES201627.822.633.153.525.71,107652
    White non-Hispanic votersANES202029.926.033.955.425.43,0351,292
    White non-Hispanic votersCES200832.130.533.758.226.211,2936,653
    White non-Hispanic votersCES201233.031.334.757.924.918,4169,387
    White non-Hispanic votersCES201625.423.926.951.125.720,5617,745
    White non-Hispanic votersCES202031.029.632.354.223.223,1497,406
    White non-Hispanic votersCES202433.832.135.553.719.922,9586,803
    The ANES gap has an interval that includes zero in 1980, 1984 and 1988 and lies above zero from 1992 on, and the CES gap lies above zero in every year from 2008. Each line joins presidential years, each band is a 95% interval, and a value above zero means that seldom attenders voted more Democratic than frequent attenders. The other views restrict the sample by race or by tradition.Note: The ANES cumulative file's 2024 religion and attendance codes cannot be used, so the ANES line ends in 2020.Note: Attendance groups follow the ANES three-category item: frequent is weekly or almost weekly, seldom is a few times a year or never. The CES has no almost-weekly answer, so its frequent group is the top two answers, once a week and more than once a week.Note: A study enters only when each attendance group has at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of the same size. Intervals are 95% intervals on the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1952-2020, and Cooperative Election Study, 2008-2024; weighted

    The ANES and the CES agree in the gap pooled over 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, which is 21.8 (95% CI 19.5 to 24.1)21.8 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 19.5 to 24.1n12,996Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodANES studies of 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points in the ANES and 23.4 (95% CI 22.7 to 24.2)23.4 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 22.7 to 24.2n133,436Weightsweight_cumulative, rescaled to average one within each yearPopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodCES 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, pooledSourceCooperative Election Study points in the CES.In single years the two surveys differ in both directions: the CES gap was 27.3 (95% CI 25.7 to 28.9)27.3 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 25.7 to 28.9n34,381Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2012SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2012 against 20.5 (95% CI 16.2 to 24.8)20.5 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 16.2 to 24.8n3,741Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File in the ANES, with intervals that do not overlap, and the ANES gap was 23.8 (95% CI 18.9 to 28.7)23.8 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 18.9 to 28.7n2,316Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 2016 against 18.9 (95% CI 17.4 to 20.4)18.9 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 17.4 to 20.4n37,373Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2016SourceCooperative Election Study in the CES.

    The CES gap did not move in one direction after 2008. It was 25.5 (95% CI 23.9 to 27.1)25.5 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 23.9 to 27.1n21,168Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2008 and 27.3 (95% CI 25.7 to 28.9)27.3 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 25.7 to 28.9n34,381Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2012SourceCooperative Election Study in 2012, fell to 18.9 (95% CI 17.4 to 20.4)18.9 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 17.4 to 20.4n37,373Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2016SourceCooperative Election Study in 2016, was 23.5 (95% CI 22.1 to 24.9)23.5 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 22.1 to 24.9n40,514Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2020SourceCooperative Election Study in 2020 and stood at 27.7 (95% CI 26.0 to 29.3)27.7 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 26.0 to 29.3n39,057Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024. The change from 2020 to 2024 came from the frequent end: the Democratic share among frequent attenders went from 36.5% (95% CI 35.3% to 37.7%)36.5% percent of two-party presidential voters who voted DemocraticEstimandweighted share voting DemocraticInterval95% CI 35.3% to 37.7%n10,434Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported two-party presidential voters who attend weekly or morePeriod2020SourceCooperative Election Study to 29.9% (95% CI 28.5% to 31.3%)29.9% percent of two-party presidential voters who voted DemocraticEstimandweighted share voting DemocraticInterval95% CI 28.5% to 31.3%n9,415Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported two-party presidential voters who attend weekly or morePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, while the share among seldom attenders went from 60.0% (95% CI 59.3% to 60.7%)60.0% percent of two-party presidential voters who voted DemocraticEstimandweighted share voting DemocraticInterval95% CI 59.3% to 60.7%n30,080Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported two-party presidential voters who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2020SourceCooperative Election Study to 57.6% (95% CI 56.7% to 58.5%)57.6% percent of two-party presidential voters who voted DemocraticEstimandweighted share voting DemocraticInterval95% CI 56.7% to 58.5%n29,642Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationreported two-party presidential voters who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study.

    The gap is larger among white voters and smaller among Protestants and Catholics

    The gap for all voters mixes several groups, and the other two views of Figure 1 separate some of them. Among white non-Hispanic voters the 2024 CES gap was 33.8 (95% CI 32.1 to 35.5)33.8 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 32.1 to 35.5n29,761Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationwhite non-Hispanic CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidatePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points, so leaving out Black, Hispanic and other voters raises it. Among Protestant and Catholic voters it was 13.2 (95% CI 11.2 to 15.2)13.2 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 11.2 to 15.2n19,980Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationProtestant and Catholic CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidatePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2024, down from 18.7 (95% CI 16.6 to 20.7)18.7 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 16.6 to 20.7n12,201Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationProtestant and Catholic CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidatePeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study in 2008.

    The voters left out of the Protestant and Catholic view include the unaffiliated. In the 2024 CES the unaffiliated attended seldom in 96% (95% CI 95% to 96%)96% percent of unaffiliated voters who attend a few times a year or neverEstimandweighted share attending seldomInterval95% CI 95% to 96%n14,224Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and answered the attendance questionPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study of cases and voted 70.9% (95% CI 69.7% to 72.2%)70.9% percent of two-party presidential voters who voted DemocraticEstimandweighted share voting DemocraticInterval95% CI 69.7% to 72.2%n14,311Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidatePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study Democratic. They made up 34.2% (95% CI 33.2% to 35.2%)34.2% percent of seldom-attending voters who are unaffiliatedEstimandweighted share unaffiliatedInterval95% CI 33.2% to 35.2%n13,123Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study of seldom-attending voters in 2008 and 44.8% (95% CI 43.9% to 45.7%)44.8% percent of seldom-attending voters who are unaffiliatedEstimandweighted share unaffiliatedInterval95% CI 43.9% to 45.7%n29,631Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024, so a growing part of the seldom group is made up of voters who voted Democratic at that rate. See Chapter 9.2, The rise of the nones (planned) for the unaffiliated and Chapter 9.3, Religious tradition and race for white evangelicals, Black Protestants, Latino Catholics and other traditions.

    The attendance gap has exceeded the denominational gap since 1992

    The ANES records denomination from 1952 and attendance from 1970, so the earliest religious line in the vote that can be measured runs between Catholics and Protestants.In the ANES the Catholic minus Protestant gap in the Democratic vote was 46.2 (95% CI 38.7 to 53.7)46.2 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 38.7 to 53.7n847Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are Protestant or CatholicPeriod1960SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 1960, the year John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected, and 20.6 (95% CI 17.4 to 23.7)20.6 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 17.4 to 23.7n5,130Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are Protestant or CatholicPeriodANES studies of 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964 and 1968, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points over the studies of 1952 to 1968 pooled. It was 8.5 (95% CI 5.6 to 11.3)8.5 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 5.6 to 11.3n5,809Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are Protestant or CatholicPeriodANES studies of 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 1972 to 1988. The Catholic minus Protestant gap was 5.0 (95% CI 1.3 to 8.6)5.0 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 1.3 to 8.6n3,775Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are Protestant or CatholicPeriodANES studies of 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 1992 to 2004 and 8.3 (95% CI 5.6 to 11.1)8.3 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 5.6 to 11.1n9,666Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are Protestant or CatholicPeriodANES studies of 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2008 to 2020, and it was 10.4 (95% CI 8.3 to 12.4)10.4 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 8.3 to 12.4n22,174Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are Protestant or CatholicPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in the 2024 CES (Figure 2). The pooled attendance gap was 13.0 (95% CI 9.7 to 16.2)13.0 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 9.7 to 16.2n4,005Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodANES studies of 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 1992 to 2004 and 21.8 (95% CI 19.5 to 24.1)21.8 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 19.5 to 24.1n12,996Weightsweight (VCF0009z), rescaled to average one within each study yearPopulationANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodANES studies of 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020, pooledSourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2008 to 2020, and its interval lies above the denominational interval in both windows. By study, the attendance gap was larger than the denominational gap in 88 countEstimandcount of studies in which the attendance gap is larger than the Catholic minus Protestant gapWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1992 to 2020Period1992-2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 88 countEstimandcount of studiesWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1992 to 2020Period1992-2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File ANES studies from 1992 on, against 11 countEstimandcount of studies in which the attendance gap is larger than the Catholic minus Protestant gapWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1972 to 1988Period1972-1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File of 55 countEstimandcount of studiesWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1972 to 1988Period1972-1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1972 to 1988, and the two intervals are separate in 33 countEstimandcount of studies in which the 95% interval of the attendance gap lies wholly above that of the Catholic minus Protestant gapWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1992 to 2020Period1992-2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 88 countEstimandcount of studiesWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1992 to 2020Period1992-2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies from 1992 on (those of 2012, 2016 and 2020). In the CES the attendance interval lies wholly above the denominational interval in 55 countEstimandcount of years in which the 95% interval of the attendance gap lies wholly above that of the Catholic minus Protestant gapWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES presidential years from 2008 to 2024Period2008-2024SourceCooperative Election Study of 55 countEstimandcount of yearsWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES presidential years from 2008 to 2024Period2008-2024SourceCooperative Election Study presidential years.The ANES cumulative file cannot supply 2024 religion or attendance. It codes 835835 countEstimandcount of respondents (unweighted)Weightsnone (count)Populationrespondents in the ANES cumulative file coded ProtestantPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File respondents as Protestant in 2024 against 3,1803,180 countEstimandcount of respondents (unweighted)Weightsnone (count)Populationrespondents in the ANES cumulative file coded ProtestantPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020, and 49%49% percent of respondents with a valid attendance answerEstimandshare of respondents with a non-missing attendance code (unweighted)Weightsnone (count)Populationrespondents in the ANES cumulative filePeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of 2024 respondents have an attendance answer against 99%99% percent of respondents with a valid attendance answerEstimandshare of respondents with a non-missing attendance code (unweighted)Weightsnone (count)Populationrespondents in the ANES cumulative filePeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020. Every ANES series here stops in 2020, and the CES supplies 2024.

    Figure 2

    Since 1992 the attendance gap has been larger than the Catholic-Protestant gap, and the unaffiliated-Protestant gap is larger still

    Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among reported voters; gaps in percentage points and shares in percent; ANES 1952 to 2020 and CES 2008 to 2024; 95% intervals

    Show data
    Data for Since 1992 the attendance gap has been larger than the Catholic-Protestant gap, and the unaffiliated-Protestant gap is larger still
    ViewTradition or sampleSeriesYearEstimateLowerUpperVoters
    gapsAll votersANES attendance197210.35.315.31,389
    gapsAll votersANES attendance19767.51.513.51,114
    gapsAll votersANES attendance19800.1−6.56.6849
    gapsAll votersANES attendance19845.2−0.310.81,201
    gapsAll votersANES attendance19882.1−4.18.21,019
    gapsAll votersANES attendance199211.36.216.51,429
    gapsAll votersANES attendance199614.67.721.5955
    gapsAll votersANES attendance200014.97.921.9934
    gapsAll votersANES attendance200412.64.520.7687
    gapsAll votersANES attendance200821.114.427.81,266
    gapsAll votersANES attendance201220.516.224.83,741
    gapsAll votersANES attendance201623.818.928.72,316
    gapsAll votersANES attendance202021.918.225.75,673
    gapsAll votersCES attendance200825.523.927.121,168
    gapsAll votersCES attendance201227.325.728.934,381
    gapsAll votersCES attendance201618.917.420.437,373
    gapsAll votersCES attendance202023.522.124.940,514
    gapsAll votersCES attendance202427.726.029.339,057
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination195215.38.722.01,104
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination19569.93.416.41,181
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination196046.238.753.7847
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination196416.210.222.11,035
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination196821.814.629.0963
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination19728.22.713.71,469
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination197611.55.117.81,219
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination19801.3−6.38.9839
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination19848.72.714.71,212
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination198810.53.917.11,070
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination19925.90.111.71,342
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination19966.6−1.014.1912
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination20001.4−6.19.0911
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination20045.0−4.214.3610
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination20089.21.217.11,195
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination20129.54.414.72,927
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination20168.62.814.41,799
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersANES denomination20207.32.811.83,745
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersCES denomination200810.18.112.213,915
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersCES denomination20127.96.19.825,252
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersCES denomination201610.89.012.524,840
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersCES denomination202010.79.012.523,634
    gapsProtestant and Catholic votersCES denomination202410.48.312.422,174
    gapsUnaffiliated and Protestant votersCES unaffiliated200836.734.738.613,283
    gapsUnaffiliated and Protestant votersCES unaffiliated201232.330.534.125,423
    gapsUnaffiliated and Protestant votersCES unaffiliated201630.128.531.627,239
    gapsUnaffiliated and Protestant votersCES unaffiliated202035.434.036.829,897
    gapsUnaffiliated and Protestant votersCES unaffiliated202438.036.339.728,512
    withinCatholicFrequent200838.736.041.31,809
    withinCatholicFrequent201237.535.039.93,002
    withinCatholicFrequent201642.940.445.42,901
    withinCatholicFrequent202042.339.744.92,434
    withinCatholicFrequent202436.733.539.82,146
    withinCatholicSeldom200856.854.559.12,705
    withinCatholicSeldom201256.053.958.14,421
    withinCatholicSeldom201651.449.553.25,220
    withinCatholicSeldom202051.649.753.55,232
    withinCatholicSeldom202447.144.949.25,074
    withinProtestantFrequent200830.829.132.43,977
    withinProtestantFrequent201234.532.936.17,667
    withinProtestantFrequent201633.632.035.16,556
    withinProtestantFrequent202032.330.833.76,240
    withinProtestantFrequent202426.524.828.15,613
    withinProtestantSeldom200848.046.149.93,710
    withinProtestantSeldom201247.245.648.87,412
    withinProtestantSeldom201641.439.943.07,416
    withinProtestantSeldom202041.840.443.37,199
    withinProtestantSeldom202438.937.240.67,147
    withinUnaffiliatedFrequent201254.546.062.9266
    withinUnaffiliatedFrequent201653.546.860.3386
    withinUnaffiliatedFrequent202059.552.966.2369
    withinUnaffiliatedSeldom200876.675.078.14,351
    withinUnaffiliatedSeldom201274.773.276.27,904
    withinUnaffiliatedSeldom201669.368.170.410,803
    withinUnaffiliatedSeldom202073.872.974.814,096
    withinUnaffiliatedSeldom202472.170.973.413,762
    The attendance gap (seldom minus frequent attenders) is larger than the denomination gap (Catholics minus Protestants) in 8 of 8 ANES studies from 1992 to 2020, with separate intervals in 3, and in all 5 CES presidential years, and the CES gap between the unaffiliated and Protestants is larger than both. Each point is a study or survey year and each band a 95% interval. Solid lines are the ANES and dashed lines the CES.Note: The ANES cumulative file's 2024 religion codes cannot be used: Protestants number 3,180 in 2020 and 835 in 2024 while Catholics are stable, so the ANES lines end in 2020. The CES gives a Catholic-Protestant gap of 10.4 points in 2024. The ANES religion item cannot separate the unaffiliated from other faiths, so the unaffiliated line is CES only.Note: A group needs at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of the same size in a study. Intervals are 95% intervals on the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1952-2020, and Cooperative Election Study, 2008-2024; weighted

    The two gaps differ in who is compared. The attendance gap counts the unaffiliated in its seldom group, and the Catholic minus Protestant gap leaves them out. In the CES the unaffiliated voted 36.7 (95% CI 34.7 to 38.6)36.7 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among the unaffiliated minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, unaffiliated minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 34.7 to 38.6n13,283Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are unaffiliated or ProtestantPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study points more Democratic than Protestants in 2008 and 38.0 (95% CI 36.3 to 39.7)38.0 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among the unaffiliated minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, unaffiliated minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 36.3 to 39.7n28,512Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are unaffiliated or ProtestantPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points more in 2024, against attendance gaps of 25.525.5 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 23.9 to 27.1n21,168Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study and 27.727.7 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 26.0 to 29.3n39,057Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points, and the unaffiliated-Protestant interval lies above both the attendance interval and the Catholic-Protestant interval in every presidential year. Among Protestant and Catholic voters alone, the two groups that the denominational gap compares, the attendance gap was 13.2 (95% CI 11.2 to 15.2)13.2 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 11.2 to 15.2n19,980Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationProtestant and Catholic CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidatePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2024 (the third view of Figure 1) against 10.4 (95% CI 8.3 to 12.4)10.4 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus ProtestantsInterval95% CI 8.3 to 12.4n22,174Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and are Protestant or CatholicPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points for denomination, and the two intervals overlap. Across the 55 countEstimandcount of yearsWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES presidential years from 2008 to 2024Period2008-2024SourceCooperative Election Study CES presidential years the attendance interval among these voters lies wholly above the denominational interval in 22 countEstimandcount of years in which the 95% interval of the attendance gap among Protestant and Catholic voters lies wholly above that of the Catholic minus Protestant gapWeightsnone (count)PopulationCES presidential years from 2008 to 2024, Protestant and Catholic voters onlyPeriod2008-2024SourceCooperative Election Study of them (2008 and 2012), and across the 88 countEstimandcount of studiesWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1992 to 2020Period1992-2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File ANES studies from 1992 on in 00 countEstimandcount of studies in which the 95% interval of the attendance gap among Protestant and Catholic voters lies wholly above that of the Catholic minus Protestant gapWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES presidential-year studies from 1992 to 2020, Protestant and Catholic voters onlyPeriod1992-2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The comparison of the two gaps therefore depends on which voters are included.

    The vote differs by attendance inside each tradition, by less than in the pooled comparison. In the 2024 CES seldom Protestants voted 12.5 (95% CI 10.1 to 14.8)12.5 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attenders, inside one traditionInterval95% CI 10.1 to 14.8n12,760Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationProtestant CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points more Democratic than frequent Protestants, and seldom Catholics 10.4 (95% CI 6.6 to 14.2)10.4 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attenders, inside one traditionInterval95% CI 6.6 to 14.2n7,220Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCatholic CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points more than frequent Catholics, against 27.727.7 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attendersInterval95% CI 26.0 to 29.3n39,057Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points among all voters. In 2008 the two gaps were 17.217.2 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attenders, inside one traditionInterval95% CI 14.7 to 19.7n7,687Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationProtestant CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study and 18.118.1 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attenders, inside one traditionInterval95% CI 14.7 to 21.6n4,514Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCatholic CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study points. Denomination also separates voters at each level of attendance. In 2024 Catholics who attend often voted 10.2 (95% CI 6.6 to 13.8)10.2 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus Protestants, within one attendance groupInterval95% CI 6.6 to 13.8n7,759Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationProtestant and Catholic CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend weekly or morePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points more Democratic than Protestants who attend often, and Catholics who attend seldom voted 8.1 (95% CI 5.4 to 10.9)8.1 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among Catholics minus ProtestantsEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, Catholics minus Protestants, within one attendance groupInterval95% CI 5.4 to 10.9n12,221Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationProtestant and Catholic CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points more than Protestants who attend seldom. Among the unaffiliated, those who attended weekly or more in 2020 voted 14.3 (95% CI 7.5 to 21.0)14.3 percentage points, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among seldom attenders minus frequent attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Democratic share of the two-party vote, seldom minus frequent attenders, among the unaffiliatedInterval95% CI 7.5 to 21.0n14,465Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationunaffiliated CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate and attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2020SourceCooperative Election StudyNoten counts the seldom and the frequent group together. The frequent group is the limiting cell, with 369 respondents and an effective sample of 208. points less Democratic than the seldom attenders. The pooled attendance gap therefore combines a gap inside each tradition with the contrast between the unaffiliated and everyone else.

    The Republican share among frequent attenders rose in the GSS

    Figure 3 plots the Republican share of Democratic and Republican identifiers by attendance. In the GSS the share among frequent attenders was 37.4% (95% CI 35.5% to 39.2%)37.4% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 35.5% to 39.2%n3,375Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend weekly or nearly weeklyPeriodGSS 1972 to 1978, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey in 1972 to 1978 and 53.2% (95% CI 50.9% to 55.5%)53.2% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 50.9% to 55.5%n2,760Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend weekly or nearly weeklyPeriodGSS 2010 to 2018, pooled (in-person surveys)SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2010 to 2018, the last in-person surveys, a change of 15.9 (95% CI 12.9 to 18.8)15.9 percentage points, change in the Republican share of party identifiersEstimandlate pooled share minus early pooled share (independent samples, standard errors combined)Interval95% CI 12.9 to 18.8n15,367Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend weekly or nearly weeklyPeriod1972-1978 to 2010-2018SourceGeneral Social Survey points. Among seldom attenders it went from 32.1% (95% CI 30.5% to 33.7%)32.1% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 30.5% to 33.7%n4,238Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend a few times a year or neverPeriodGSS 1972 to 1978, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey to 37.8% (95% CI 36.2% to 39.5%)37.8% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 36.2% to 39.5%n4,994Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend a few times a year or neverPeriodGSS 2010 to 2018, pooled (in-person surveys)SourceGeneral Social Survey, a change of 5.7 (95% CI 3.4 to 8.0)5.7 percentage points, change in the Republican share of party identifiersEstimandlate pooled share minus early pooled share (independent samples, standard errors combined)Interval95% CI 3.4 to 8.0n15,367Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod1972-1978 to 2010-2018SourceGeneral Social Survey points. The gap between the two groups went from 5.3 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.7)5.3 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 2.9 to 7.7n7,613Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodGSS 1972 to 1978, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey to 15.4 (95% CI 12.6 to 18.2)15.4 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 12.6 to 18.2n7,754Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodGSS 2010 to 2018, pooled (in-person surveys)SourceGeneral Social Survey points, so the Republican share rose in both groups and rose more among frequent attenders. The GSS has included web interviews since 2021, and the surveys from 2021 on are called the web era below. The surveys of 2018 to 2024, which include web interviews, give a larger gap of 19.5 (95% CI 16.3 to 22.8)19.5 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 16.3 to 22.8n8,705Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodGSS 2018 to 2024, pooled (includes web interviews)SourceGeneral Social Survey points, and in 2022 and 2024 the gap was 18.0 (95% CI 10.3 to 25.8)18.0 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 10.3 to 25.8n1,723Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationin-person GSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2022 and 2024, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey points among in-person respondents and 23.7 (95% CI 16.8 to 30.5)23.7 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 16.8 to 30.5n2,175Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationweb GSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2022 and 2024, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey among web respondents, so part of the larger gap in that window is not separable from the interview mode.In the surveys of 2018 to 2024 the Republican share was 59.7% (95% CI 57.0% to 62.5%)59.7% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 57.0% to 62.5%n2,531Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend weekly or nearly weeklyPeriodGSS 2018 to 2024, pooled (includes web interviews)SourceGeneral Social Survey among frequent attenders and 40.2% (95% CI 38.5% to 41.9%)40.2% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 38.5% to 41.9%n6,174Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend a few times a year or neverPeriodGSS 2018 to 2024, pooled (includes web interviews)SourceGeneral Social Survey among seldom attenders, changes from 1972 to 1978 of 22.4 (95% CI 19.1 to 25.7)22.4 percentage points, change in the Republican share of party identifiersEstimandlate pooled share minus early pooled share (independent samples, standard errors combined)Interval95% CI 19.1 to 25.7n16,318Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend weekly or nearly weeklyPeriod1972-1978 to 2018-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey and 8.1 (95% CI 5.8 to 10.4)8.1 percentage points, change in the Republican share of party identifiersEstimandlate pooled share minus early pooled share (independent samples, standard errors combined)Interval95% CI 5.8 to 10.4n16,318Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod1972-1978 to 2018-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey points.

    Figure 3

    The Republican share of party identifiers rose more among frequent attenders than among seldom attenders in the GSS

    Republican share of Democratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) among frequent attenders (weekly or nearly weekly, and weekly or more in the CES) and seldom attenders (a few times a year or never), by year, percent, 95% intervals

    Show data
    Data for The Republican share of party identifiers rose more among frequent attenders than among seldom attenders in the GSS
    SurveyAttendanceYearRepublican share (%)LowerUpperRespondents
    CESFrequent200861.560.362.79,264
    CESFrequent200962.660.764.53,447
    CESFrequent201061.760.563.015,341
    CESFrequent201158.256.260.24,711
    CESFrequent201259.658.360.813,849
    CESFrequent201357.254.859.63,336
    CESFrequent201461.460.162.712,466
    CESFrequent201557.054.659.43,019
    CESFrequent201656.555.457.713,736
    CESFrequent201759.357.061.63,608
    CESFrequent201865.163.966.312,055
    CESFrequent201963.961.965.93,690
    CESFrequent202063.862.665.011,385
    CESFrequent202163.561.765.34,609
    CESFrequent202264.563.265.811,125
    CESFrequent202358.256.460.05,168
    CESFrequent202468.166.769.510,949
    CESSeldom200835.034.135.915,164
    CESSeldom200937.636.339.06,317
    CESSeldom201040.839.841.726,251
    CESSeldom201138.837.440.29,845
    CESSeldom201233.832.934.725,858
    CESSeldom201337.235.738.87,801
    CESSeldom201440.139.240.926,501
    CESSeldom201539.938.341.47,057
    CESSeldom201639.138.439.931,636
    CESSeldom201739.237.740.78,894
    CESSeldom201838.738.039.531,182
    CESSeldom201937.636.338.99,363
    CESSeldom202040.339.641.132,768
    CESSeldom202138.437.339.513,718
    CESSeldom202240.039.240.732,774
    CESSeldom202340.139.041.212,096
    CESSeldom202440.739.841.634,618
    GSSFrequent197233.729.537.9575
    GSSFrequent197343.038.147.8468
    GSSFrequent197436.932.141.8473
    GSSFrequent197538.934.043.9467
    GSSFrequent197633.328.538.0452
    GSSFrequent197735.330.540.0482
    GSSFrequent197841.435.747.1458
    GSSFrequent198038.633.144.2438
    GSSFrequent198239.734.345.0579
    GSSFrequent198339.934.345.4513
    GSSFrequent198447.842.253.5489
    GSSFrequent198545.439.850.9507
    GSSFrequent198647.142.152.1466
    GSSFrequent198746.341.151.5549
    GSSFrequent198851.646.556.7444
    GSSFrequent198950.145.055.2476
    GSSFrequent199052.847.558.1429
    GSSFrequent199150.945.756.0458
    GSSFrequent199353.548.558.6487
    GSSFrequent199451.147.255.0810
    GSSFrequent199650.046.053.9748
    GSSFrequent199851.247.355.2763
    GSSFrequent200053.949.858.1688
    GSSFrequent200254.149.958.4705
    GSSFrequent200453.749.557.8786
    GSSFrequent200655.351.958.61,165
    GSSFrequent200853.047.958.1527
    GSSFrequent201050.745.256.2507
    GSSFrequent201250.845.256.3496
    GSSFrequent201454.650.059.3587
    GSSFrequent201652.247.756.7681
    GSSFrequent201857.952.163.6489
    GSSFrequent202154.650.359.0813
    GSSFrequent202260.754.267.3606
    GSSFrequent202466.260.971.5623
    GSSSeldom197231.427.235.6579
    GSSSeldom197334.330.338.4625
    GSSSeldom197429.425.333.4571
    GSSSeldom197530.726.634.7587
    GSSSeldom197630.826.834.9620
    GSSSeldom197732.828.736.9631
    GSSSeldom197834.730.039.4625
    GSSSeldom198033.228.537.9587
    GSSSeldom198238.133.742.5753
    GSSSeldom198337.933.242.7639
    GSSSeldom198440.535.445.6576
    GSSSeldom198544.439.749.1650
    GSSSeldom198643.138.547.6560
    GSSSeldom198743.539.147.9706
    GSSSeldom198840.235.844.6612
    GSSSeldom198946.342.050.7643
    GSSSeldom199044.739.949.5528
    GSSSeldom199149.545.154.0596
    GSSSeldom199343.439.147.8630
    GSSSeldom199441.838.844.91,250
    GSSSeldom199644.941.848.11,187
    GSSSeldom199841.037.844.31,108
    GSSSeldom200040.437.243.71,110
    GSSSeldom200240.937.544.41,083
    GSSSeldom200442.739.346.01,140
    GSSSeldom200639.336.642.01,733
    GSSSeldom200835.331.539.1857
    GSSSeldom201037.133.041.1842
    GSSSeldom201236.332.240.5788
    GSSSeldom201437.133.740.51,069
    GSSSeldom201636.232.939.51,240
    GSSSeldom201842.338.446.11,055
    GSSSeldom202135.032.437.61,977
    GSSSeldom202243.639.947.31,690
    GSSSeldom202442.038.545.51,452
    The two groups start close together in the GSS, and the Republican share rises further among frequent attenders. Each point is one survey year, each band a 95% interval and the dashed rule an even split. The shaded band marks the GSS years from 2021 on, which include web interviews.Note: Pure independents are left out. GSS 2021 to 2024 include web interviews, so the 2018 to 2024 window is not comparable with the in-person window of 2010 to 2018. In 2022 and 2024 pooled the frequent-minus-seldom gap was 18.0 points among in-person respondents and 23.7 points among web respondents.Note: A cell needs at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of the same size. Intervals are 95% intervals on the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample.Source: General Social Survey, 1972-2024, and Cooperative Election Study, 2008-2024; weighted

    The CES begins in 2008 and shows a different pattern. Its gap was 26.5 (95% CI 25.0 to 28.0)26.5 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 25.0 to 28.0n24,428Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2008 and 27.4 (95% CI 25.7 to 29.1)27.4 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 25.7 to 29.1n45,567Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study points in 2024. Frequent attenders were 61.5% (95% CI 60.3% to 62.7%)61.5% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 60.3% to 62.7%n9,264Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend weekly or morePeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study Republican in 2008 and 68.1% (95% CI 66.7% to 69.5%)68.1% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 66.7% to 69.5%n10,949Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend weekly or morePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024, and seldom attenders 35.0% (95% CI 34.1% to 35.9%)35.0% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 34.1% to 35.9%n15,164Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study and 40.7% (95% CI 39.8% to 41.6%)40.7% percent of party identifiers (leaners included) who identify as RepublicanEstimandweighted share RepublicanInterval95% CI 39.8% to 41.6%n34,618Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend a few times a year or neverPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study, so the Republican share rose by similar amounts in the two groups. The CES gap of 2008 already exceeds the GSS gap of 15.415.4 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 12.6 to 18.2n7,754Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodGSS 2010 to 2018, pooled (in-person surveys)SourceGeneral Social Survey points in 2010 to 2018 and of 19.519.5 percentage points, Republican share of party identifiers among frequent attenders minus seldom attendersEstimandweighted difference in the Republican share of party identifiers, frequent minus seldom attendersInterval95% CI 16.3 to 22.8n8,705Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS Democratic or Republican identifiers who attend seldom or frequentlyPeriodGSS 2018 to 2024, pooled (includes web interviews)SourceGeneral Social Survey points in 2018 to 2024, and the two surveys differ in sample, mode and party items, so their levels are not comparable. The CES cannot say what happened before 2008.

    Party identification accounts for part of the rise in the slope

    In the GSS the raw slope of ideology on attendance was 0.15 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.20)0.15 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.09 to 0.20n1,344Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974SourceGeneral Social Survey in 1974, 0.26 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.31)0.26 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.21 to 0.31n1,884Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2008SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2008, 0.25 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.31)0.25 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.20 to 0.31n2,139Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2018 and 0.32 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.37)0.32 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.26 to 0.37n3,039Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024 (Figure 4). Each slope is the standardized slopeStandardized coefficientA regression coefficient measured in standard deviations of the variables involved. It lets effects on differently scaled variables be compared. of self-placed ideology on attendance in one survey year, with both variables standardized once on all respondents in the sample, so it counts the standard deviationsStandard deviationA measure of how far values typically fall from their average. A larger standard deviation means the values are more spread out. of ideology that go with one standard deviation more attendance.

    Net of party identification, with leanersPartisan leanerA respondent who first says they are independent but, when asked, says they lean toward one party. Most figures group leaners with the party they lean toward, and each chapter says which grouping it uses. counted with their party and the fit made on the same respondents, the slope was 0.14 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.19)0.14 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendance net of party identificationInterval95% CI 0.08 to 0.19n1,344Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974SourceGeneral Social Survey in 1974, 0.19 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.24)0.19 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendance net of party identificationInterval95% CI 0.14 to 0.24n2,139Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2018SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2018 and 0.20 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.25)0.20 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendance net of party identificationInterval95% CI 0.15 to 0.25n3,039Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024. The 2024 point falls in the web era of the GSS. In 2022 and 2024 pooled, in-person respondents give a slope of 0.23 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.30)0.23 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.17 to 0.30n2,423Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationin-person GSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2022 and 2024, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey and web respondents give 0.37 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.42)0.37 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.31 to 0.42n3,227Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationweb GSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2022 and 2024, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey, a difference of 0.13 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.22)0.13 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweb slope minus in-person slope (independent samples, standard errors combined)Interval95% CI 0.05 to 0.22n5,650Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2022 and 2024, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey, so the 2024 slope differs by modeSurvey modeHow respondents were interviewed: in person, by phone, on paper or online. Mode can change answers, so a change in mode can look like a change in opinion. of interview.

    The CES, which is online throughout, does not show a steady rise. Its slope was 0.35 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.36)0.35 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.34 to 0.36n29,793Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study in 2008 and fell to 0.25 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.26)0.25 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.24 to 0.26n51,265Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriod2010SourceCooperative Election Study in 2010, and it was 0.35 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.37)0.35 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.34 to 0.37n55,195Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024. Pooled, it was 0.26 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.27)0.26 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.26 to 0.27n269,105Weightsweight_cumulative, rescaled to average one within each yearPopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriodCES 2010 to 2017, pooledSourceCooperative Election Study over 2010 to 2017 and 0.35 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.35)0.35 standard deviations of ideology per standard deviation of attendance (standardized slope)Estimandweighted standardized slope of ideology on attendanceInterval95% CI 0.34 to 0.35n278,831Weightsweight_cumulative, rescaled to average one within each yearPopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriodCES 2018 to 2024, pooledSourceCooperative Election Study over 2018 to 2024. The step between 2017 and 2018 coincides with a rise in the spread of the five-point ideology item, whose standard deviation was 1.001.00 standard deviation, in points of the five-point ideology scale (1 very liberal to 5 very conservative)Estimandweighted standard deviation of five-point ideologyn269,105Weightsweight_cumulative, rescaled to average one within each yearPopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriodCES 2010 to 2017, pooledSourceCooperative Election Study in 2010 to 2017 and 1.211.21 standard deviation, in points of the five-point ideology scale (1 very liberal to 5 very conservative)Estimandweighted standard deviation of five-point ideologyn278,831Weightsweight_cumulative, rescaled to average one within each yearPopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriodCES 2018 to 2024, pooledSourceCooperative Election Study in 2018 to 2024. The slope is standardized on all years together, so part of the step is a change in that spread and not in the tie with attendance. The correlation of attendance with ideology, which does not depend on the spread, was +0.29 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.29)+0.29 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with five-point ideologyInterval95% CI 0.28 to 0.29n269,105Weightsweight_cumulative, rescaled to average one within each yearPopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriodCES 2010 to 2017, pooledSourceCooperative Election Study over 2010 to 2017 and +0.32 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.32)+0.32 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with five-point ideologyInterval95% CI 0.31 to 0.32n278,831Weightsweight_cumulative, rescaled to average one within each yearPopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriodCES 2018 to 2024, pooledSourceCooperative Election Study over 2018 to 2024.

    Figure 4

    The slope of ideology on attendance rose in the GSS from the 1970s to the 2000s, and party accounts for part of the rise

    Standardized slope of ideology on church attendance, by year, raw and net of party identification; 95% intervals

    Show data
    Data for The slope of ideology on attendance rose in the GSS from the 1970s to the 2000s, and party accounts for part of the rise
    SurveySeriesYearSlopeLowerUpperRespondents
    CESNet of party20080.180.170.2029,793
    CESNet of party20090.170.160.1912,123
    CESNet of party20100.140.130.1551,265
    CESNet of party20110.150.130.1618,198
    CESNet of party20120.160.150.1748,517
    CESNet of party20130.160.140.1714,509
    CESNet of party20140.160.150.1749,407
    CESNet of party20150.170.150.1912,719
    CESNet of party20160.180.170.1958,315
    CESNet of party20170.160.150.1816,175
    CESNet of party20180.190.180.2053,579
    CESNet of party20190.160.150.1816,287
    CESNet of party20200.180.170.1954,697
    CESNet of party20210.190.170.2023,134
    CESNet of party20220.200.180.2154,246
    CESNet of party20230.180.170.2021,693
    CESNet of party20240.170.160.1855,195
    CESRaw slope20080.350.340.3629,793
    CESRaw slope20090.310.290.3312,123
    CESRaw slope20100.250.240.2651,265
    CESRaw slope20110.240.230.2618,198
    CESRaw slope20120.280.270.2948,517
    CESRaw slope20130.250.230.2714,509
    CESRaw slope20140.270.260.2849,407
    CESRaw slope20150.260.240.2812,719
    CESRaw slope20160.260.250.2758,315
    CESRaw slope20170.270.250.2916,175
    CESRaw slope20180.360.350.3853,579
    CESRaw slope20190.350.330.3716,287
    CESRaw slope20200.340.330.3554,697
    CESRaw slope20210.350.330.3723,134
    CESRaw slope20220.360.340.3754,246
    CESRaw slope20230.300.280.3221,693
    CESRaw slope20240.350.340.3755,195
    GSSNet of party19740.140.080.191,344
    GSSNet of party19750.150.090.211,382
    GSSNet of party19760.120.070.181,387
    GSSNet of party19770.100.040.161,435
    GSSNet of party19780.130.080.191,420
    GSSNet of party19800.110.040.181,414
    GSSNet of party19820.160.100.211,718
    GSSNet of party1983−0.02−0.100.06761
    GSSNet of party19840.180.120.231,380
    GSSNet of party19850.110.050.171,443
    GSSNet of party19860.130.070.181,387
    GSSNet of party19870.120.070.181,658
    GSSNet of party19880.120.060.181,408
    GSSNet of party19890.120.060.171,428
    GSSNet of party19900.150.090.211,267
    GSSNet of party19910.160.100.211,421
    GSSNet of party19930.200.150.261,496
    GSSNet of party19940.180.140.222,765
    GSSNet of party19960.170.130.212,630
    GSSNet of party19980.190.150.232,585
    GSSNet of party20000.180.130.222,527
    GSSNet of party20020.130.070.191,294
    GSSNet of party20040.140.080.201,287
    GSSNet of party20060.160.130.194,244
    GSSNet of party20080.190.140.241,884
    GSSNet of party20100.150.100.211,911
    GSSNet of party20120.190.130.241,809
    GSSNet of party20140.210.170.252,360
    GSSNet of party20160.190.150.232,662
    GSSNet of party20180.190.140.242,139
    GSSNet of party20210.160.120.193,793
    GSSNet of party20220.180.140.233,276
    GSSNet of party20240.200.150.253,039
    GSSRaw slope19740.150.090.201,344
    GSSRaw slope19750.160.100.211,382
    GSSRaw slope19760.140.080.191,387
    GSSRaw slope19770.100.040.161,435
    GSSRaw slope19780.150.090.211,420
    GSSRaw slope19800.120.050.191,414
    GSSRaw slope19820.170.110.231,718
    GSSRaw slope1983−0.02−0.110.06761
    GSSRaw slope19840.190.130.241,380
    GSSRaw slope19850.120.050.181,443
    GSSRaw slope19860.140.080.191,387
    GSSRaw slope19870.130.070.191,658
    GSSRaw slope19880.150.090.211,408
    GSSRaw slope19890.130.070.191,428
    GSSRaw slope19900.170.110.231,267
    GSSRaw slope19910.160.100.221,421
    GSSRaw slope19930.230.180.291,496
    GSSRaw slope19940.200.160.252,765
    GSSRaw slope19960.200.150.242,630
    GSSRaw slope19980.230.190.272,585
    GSSRaw slope20000.220.170.262,527
    GSSRaw slope20020.180.110.241,294
    GSSRaw slope20040.170.100.241,287
    GSSRaw slope20060.220.190.264,244
    GSSRaw slope20080.260.210.311,884
    GSSRaw slope20100.210.150.271,911
    GSSRaw slope20120.240.180.301,809
    GSSRaw slope20140.270.230.322,360
    GSSRaw slope20160.260.210.302,662
    GSSRaw slope20180.250.200.312,139
    GSSRaw slope20210.260.220.303,793
    GSSRaw slope20220.290.230.353,276
    GSSRaw slope20240.320.260.373,039
    In the GSS the raw slope rose from 0.15 in 1974 to 0.26 in 2008 and was 0.25 in 2018 and 0.32 in 2024, and the slope net of party stayed lower, at 0.14 in 1974 and 0.19 in 2018. Each point is one survey year. Both fits use the same respondents, and both variables are standardized once on all years together, so the years share one scale. The shaded band marks 2021 to 2024, when web interviews entered the GSS.Note: Ideology is the seven-point liberal-conservative scale in the GSS and a five-point scale in the CES.Note: GSS interviews were in person, with some telephone interviews, through 2018; 2021 was mostly web, and 2022 and 2024 mixed in-person and web interviews. In 2022 and 2024 pooled, in-person respondents give a slope of 0.23 and web respondents 0.37.Note: The GSS 1983 survey asked the ideology item of a subsample only, and that year's slope, marked on the chart, rests on fewer respondents. Years with fewer than 200 respondents are left out. Intervals are 95% intervals on the Kish effective sample size and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample. Regression intervals use HC3 robust errors.Source: General Social Survey, 1974-2024, and Cooperative Election Study, 2008-2024; weighted

    To ask how much of the rise is accounted for by party, the chapter fits each slope on one set of respondents, once raw and once with party identification added, and compares an early and a late window. The main comparison pools the in-person GSS surveys of 1974 to 1978 and of 2010 to 2018. The raw slope rose by 0.11 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.15)0.11 change in the standardized slopeEstimandrise in the raw standardized slope; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 0.08 to 0.15n17,849Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey between the two windows and the slope net of party by 0.06 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.10)0.06 change in the standardized slopeEstimandrise in the standardized slope net of party; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 0.03 to 0.10n17,849Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey, so party identification accounts for 46% (95% CI 33% to 67%)46% percent of the rise in the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the rise in the slope net of party to the rise in the raw slope; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 33% to 67%n17,849Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey of the rise.The share is one minus the ratio of the two rises. Its interval comes from a bootstrap over respondents, which recomputes both rises on 2,0002,000 countEstimandsuppression floor or setting used in the buildWeightsnone (count)Populationbootstrap replicatesPeriodall yearsSourceCooperative Election Study resamples of the respondents drawn with replacement and reads the interval from the spread of the results. Four other specifications give shares from 50%50% percent of the rise in the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the rise in the slope net of party to the rise in the raw slope; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 20% to 163%n3,483Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974 and 2018 alone (2018 is the last survey before the web mode)SourceGeneral Social Survey to 64%64% percent of the rise in the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the rise in the slope net of party to the rise in the raw slope; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 41% to 112%n4,383Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974 and 2024 alone (2024 includes web interviews)SourceGeneral Social Survey (Figure 5). Every specification puts the rise net of party below the raw rise, and the single-year comparisons have intervals wide enough to include the whole rise.

    Figure 5

    Party identification accounts for 46% of the rise in the ideology slope (95% interval 33% to 67%) and for 50% to 64% in four other specifications

    Early and late GSS periods compared on one common sample of respondents, by specification; 95% bootstrap intervals

    The share of the rise that party identification accounts for runs from 46% in the main specification to 64% when 1974 is compared with 2024

    Share of the rise in the raw slope that the party control accounts for, in percent

    • Main specification
    • Other specifications

    The intervals of the three pooled comparisons lie below the whole rise and those of the two single-year comparisons reach past it. A bound above the whole rise comes from resamples in which the rise net of party is negative.

    Show data
    Data for Party identification accounts for 46% of the rise in the ideology slope (95% interval 33% to 67%) and for 50% to 64% in four other specifications, Share accounted for
    SpecificationPeriods comparedShare accounted for by party (%)LowerUpperRespondents
    Pooled in-person windows1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, pooled46336717,849
    Seven party categories1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, seven party categories52377417,849
    1974 and 2018 alone1974 and 2018 alone (2018 is the last survey before the web mode)50201633,483
    1974 and 2024 alone1974 and 2024 alone (2024 includes web interviews)64411124,383
    Late window with web1974 to 1978 and 2018 to 2024, pooled (includes web interviews)63498219,215
    Each row compares an early and a late period on the same respondents, and the share is one minus the ratio of the rise net of party to the raw rise. With seven party categories the share is 52%, and it is 63% when the late window is 2018 to 2024, which includes web interviews.Note: The main specification pools the in-person GSS surveys of 1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, and the seven-category row repeats that comparison with a finer party control. The single-year rows compare 1974 with 2018, the last survey before the web mode, and with 2024. The late window with web pools 2018 to 2024 against 1974 to 1978.Note: The percentile bootstrap resamples respondents within each period 2,000 times and refits both slopes each time. The party control is two indicators (Republican, independent) unless the row says seven categories.Note: The web mode began in 2021. Rows that end in 2018 or use the survey years 2010 to 2018 contain no web interviews.Source: General Social Survey, 1972-2024; weighted

    The share is an accounting of the slope. Party identification and ideology are answered by the same respondents in the same interview, and the tie between them tightened over these years (Chapter 1.1, Party and ideology), so a party control can be expected to remove more of the slope in later years. In the GSS it removes 8% (95% CI 0% to 18%)8% percent of the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the slope net of party to the raw slope in one year; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 0% to 18%n1,344Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974SourceGeneral Social Survey of the raw slope in 1974 and 38% (95% CI 29% to 48%)38% percent of the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the slope net of party to the raw slope in one year; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 29% to 48%n3,039Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024, and in the CES 47% (95% CI 45% to 50%)47% percent of the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the slope net of party to the raw slope in one year; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 45% to 50%n29,793Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study in 2008 and 53% (95% CI 50% to 55%)53% percent of the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the slope net of party to the raw slope in one year; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 50% to 55%n55,195Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents with attendance, five-point ideology and party identificationPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024. Panel studies find that religious behavior and identity respond to politics. Partisan identity that forms early can shape how often people attend and whether they identify with a religion [4], and religious and secular orientations respond to political orientations [5]. Cross-sections cannot separate the two directions, so the share is not an estimate of how much of the slope party causes or how much religion does.

    Attendance correlates more closely with cultural than with economic attitudes

    The GSS asks questions on sexual morality and abortion (homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex, a pornography law and abortion for any reason) and on economic policy (help for the poor, help for the sick and government action on income differences). Averaging each set gives a cultural index and an economic index. The economic items are asked from 1975, so the comparison starts there, and over 1975 to 2024 the correlationCorrelationA number from minus 1 to plus 1 for how closely two measures move together in a straight-line pattern. Zero means no straight-line pattern; a correlation does not say that one measure causes the other. of attendance with the cultural index is +0.44 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.45)+0.44 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with the cultural conservatismInterval95% CI 0.43 to 0.45n38,327Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and both indicesPeriod1975-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey, with the economic index +0.11 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.12)+0.11 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with the economic conservatismInterval95% CI 0.09 to 0.12n38,327Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and both indicesPeriod1975-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey and with self-placed ideology +0.22 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.23)+0.22 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with the self-placed ideologyInterval95% CI 0.21 to 0.23n55,035Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and self-placed ideology, in the survey years in which both indices were measuredPeriod1975-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey. All three use the same survey years. The cultural and economic correlations use the same respondents, and the ideology correlation uses every respondent who answered the ideology item in those years. The cultural correlation was +0.37 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.40)+0.37 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with the cultural conservatismInterval95% CI 0.34 to 0.40n4,196Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and both indicesPeriod1975-1984SourceGeneral Social Survey in 1975 to 1984 and +0.46 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.49)+0.46 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with the cultural conservatismInterval95% CI 0.44 to 0.49n6,846Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and both indicesPeriod2021-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2021 to 2024, and the economic correlation went from +0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.11)+0.07 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with the economic conservatismInterval95% CI 0.04 to 0.11n4,196Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and both indicesPeriod1975-1984SourceGeneral Social Survey to +0.18 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.22)+0.18 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with the economic conservatismInterval95% CI 0.15 to 0.22n6,846Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and both indicesPeriod2021-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey (Figure 6). The first period rests on the surveys of 1975, 1983 and 1984, the only ones in it that asked the economic items.

    Figure 6

    Attendance correlates more closely with cultural than with economic conservatism, and the economic correlation has grown

    Weighted correlation of church attendance (never to more than weekly) with cultural conservatism, economic conservatism and self-placed ideology, by period, GSS respondents, 95% intervals

    Show data
    Data for Attendance correlates more closely with cultural than with economic conservatism, and the economic correlation has grown
    OutcomePeriodCorrelationLowerUpperRespondents
    Cultural conservatism1975 to 19840.370.340.404,196
    Cultural conservatism1985 to 19940.390.370.419,643
    Cultural conservatism1995 to 20040.420.400.456,963
    Cultural conservatism2005 to 20140.440.420.477,362
    Cultural conservatism2015 to 20180.470.440.513,317
    Cultural conservatism2021 to 20240.460.440.496,846
    Economic conservatism1975 to 19840.070.040.114,196
    Economic conservatism1985 to 19940.060.040.089,643
    Economic conservatism1995 to 20040.070.050.106,963
    Economic conservatism2005 to 20140.090.060.117,362
    Economic conservatism2015 to 20180.120.080.173,317
    Economic conservatism2021 to 20240.180.150.226,846
    Self-placed ideology1975 to 19840.140.100.173,565
    Self-placed ideology1985 to 19940.170.150.1912,990
    Self-placed ideology1995 to 20040.210.190.2310,527
    Self-placed ideology2005 to 20140.240.220.2612,522
    Self-placed ideology2015 to 20180.240.210.274,983
    Self-placed ideology2021 to 20240.270.240.2910,448
    The cultural line lies above the economic line in every period, and the economic line is higher in the last period than in the first. Each point is the correlation in the survey years of one period, placed at the period's midpoint, with a 95% interval band, and a higher value means that more frequent attenders were more conservative. The shaded band marks the period with web interviews.Note: The first period rests on the surveys of 1975, 1983 and 1984, the only ones in it that asked the economic items. All three outcomes use the survey years in which both indices were measured; the ideology points include every respondent who answered the ideology item in those years. The periods are 1975 to 1984, 1985 to 1994, 1995 to 2004, 2005 to 2014, 2015 to 2018 and 2021 to 2024.Note: Cultural conservatism averages five standardized items (homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex, pornography law, abortion for any reason); economic conservatism averages three (help for the poor, help for the sick, government action on income differences). Each index needs at least two answers. The mean correlation among the cultural items is +0.32 and among the economic items +0.42.Note: GSS 2021 to 2024 include web interviews, and 2015 to 2018 is the last period before them. Correlations use the Kish effective sample size for the interval.Source: General Social Survey, 1972-2024; weighted

    The two indices have similar internal consistency, meaning that their items agree with one another to a similar degree (standardized alpha of 0.700.70 coefficient from 0 to 1 (standardized alpha)Estimandstandardized alpha of the five cultural items, k r / (1 + (k - 1) r) with r the mean pairwise weighted correlationWeightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondentsPeriod1972-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey for the cultural items and 0.690.69 coefficient from 0 to 1 (standardized alpha)Estimandstandardized alpha of the three economic items, k r / (1 + (k - 1) r) with r the mean pairwise weighted correlationWeightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondentsPeriod1972-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey for the economic ones), which limits how far unequal measurement error can explain the difference in correlations. The cultural items ask about sexual morality and abortion, topics on which many religious traditions take positions, so part of the tie sits close to the content of religious teaching. For the abortion item by party see Chapter 4.1, The abortion sort, for whether the cultural items form one dimension see Chapter 9.5, Two moralities (planned), and for the economic and cultural dimensions across the whole ideology scale see Chapter 7.2, Economic and cultural dimensions.

    The United States sits above the European and world averages

    The World Values Survey and the European Values Study (WVS/EVS) ask how important God is in a respondent's life and ask for a left-right self-placementLeft-right self-placementA survey question that asks people to place themselves on a scale from left to right. The scale is the same for everyone, but the meaning attached to left and right differs across people, countries and years.. Inside each country the two answers have a correlation, and in the United States it is +0.28 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.31)+0.28 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of left-right self-placement with the importance of GodInterval95% CI 0.25 to 0.31n5,858Weightsweight (S017) within the countryPopulationWVS/EVS respondents in the United States with a left-right answerPeriodfieldwork 2006, 2011 and 2017SourceWorld Values Survey and EVS. The mean across the 104104 countEstimandcount of countries and territoriesWeightsnone (count)Populationcountries and territories with a left-right answer and an effective sample of 300 or morePeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS countries and territories with a usable estimate, counting each once, is +0.10 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.12)+0.10 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandmean across countries of the within-country correlation of left-right with the importance of God (percentile bootstrap over countries)Interval95% CI 0.09 to 0.12n104Weightsweight (S017) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulationcountries and territories in the WVS/EVS with a usable correlationPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS. It is +0.13 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.16)+0.13 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandmean across countries of the within-country correlation of left-right with the importance of God (percentile bootstrap over countries)Interval95% CI 0.10 to 0.16n42Weightsweight (S017) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulationEuropean countries in the WVS/EVS with a usable correlationPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS across 4242 countEstimandcount of countriesWeightsnone (count)PopulationEuropean countries and territories with a usable correlationPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS European countries and +0.08 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.10)+0.08 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandmean across countries of the within-country correlation of left-right with the importance of God (percentile bootstrap over countries)Interval95% CI 0.06 to 0.10n61Weightsweight (S017) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulationcountries outside Europe and the United States in the WVS/EVS with a usable correlationPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS across 6161 countEstimandcount of countriesWeightsnone (count)Populationcountries outside Europe and the United States with a usable correlationPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS countries outside Europe and the United States. 44 countEstimandcount of countries whose correlation is larger than the United States valueWeightsnone (count)Populationcountries and territories with a usable correlationPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS countries have a higher point estimate than the United States (Croatia, Greece, Slovenia and Spain), and in 22 countEstimandcount of countries whose 95% interval lies entirely above the United States intervalWeightsnone (count)Populationcountries and territories with a usable correlationPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS of them (Croatia and Spain) the interval lies wholly above the United States interval (Figure 7).The cleaned WVS/EVS file holds 118118 countEstimandcount of countries and territories (ten EVS labels restored from the country code)Weightsnone (count)Populationcountries and territories in the cleaned WVS/EVS filePeriod1981-2023SourceWorld Values Survey and EVS countries and territories, and 112112 countEstimandcount of countries and territoriesWeightsnone (count)Populationcountries and territories surveyed in 2005 or laterPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS were surveyed in 2005 or later. It leaves the country name blank for ten EVS countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Kosovo and Northern Cyprus. This chapter restores them from the country code, and 99 countEstimandcount of countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal)Weightsnone (count)Populationrestored EVS countries with a usable correlationPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS have a usable estimate. Without them the mean across 9595 countEstimandcount of countries and territoriesWeightsnone (count)Populationcountries and territories with a usable correlation, without the restored EVS countriesPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS countries and territories is +0.10 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.12)+0.10 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandmean across countries of the within-country correlation of left-right with the importance of God (percentile bootstrap over countries)Interval95% CI 0.08 to 0.12n95Weightsweight (S017) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulationcountries and territories in the WVS/EVS with a usable correlation, without the restored EVS countriesPeriodfieldwork 2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS.

    Figure 7

    On both measures the United States correlation between religiosity and the right lies above the European and world averages

    Weighted correlation between left-right self-placement and the importance of God or attendance, inside each country; the United States on two measures and equal-country means for Europe and the rest of the world; 95% intervals

    • United States
    • Europe
    • Rest of the world
    Show data
    Data for On both measures the United States correlation between religiosity and the right lies above the European and world averages
    ViewRowDrawn in the chartCorrelationLowerUpperRespondentsCountries
    summaryUS, GSS attendanceyes0.250.230.2627,953n/a
    summaryEurope, ESS attendance (36 countries)yes0.110.080.14n/a36
    summaryUS, WVS/EVS importance of Godyes0.280.250.315,858n/a
    summaryEurope, WVS/EVS importance of God (42 countries)yes0.130.100.16n/a42
    summaryRest of the world, WVS/EVS importance of God (61 countries)yes0.080.060.10n/a61
    summaryAll WVS/EVS countries, importance of God (104 countries)yes0.100.090.12n/a104
    countriesAlbaniano0.130.090.182,209n/a
    countriesAlgeriano−0.02−0.110.06536n/a
    countriesAndorrayes0.220.170.261,813n/a
    countriesArgentinayes0.220.180.262,326n/a
    countriesArmeniano0.040.000.083,758n/a
    countriesAustraliano0.200.160.234,456n/a
    countriesAustriano0.130.090.172,710n/a
    countriesAzerbaijanno0.040.000.092,152n/a
    countriesBangladeshno0.01−0.050.061,200n/a
    countriesBelarusno0.070.040.113,186n/a
    countriesBelgiumno0.120.070.171,421n/a
    countriesBoliviano0.050.010.101,803n/a
    countriesBosnia Herzegovinano0.190.150.232,269n/a
    countriesBrazilno0.090.060.123,673n/a
    countriesBulgariano0.050.010.092,670n/a
    countriesBurkina Fasono−0.04−0.090.021,109n/a
    countriesCanadayes0.250.220.285,628n/a
    countriesChileno0.090.040.152,085n/a
    countriesColombiano0.120.090.145,005n/a
    countriesCroatiayes0.360.320.402,354n/a
    countriesCyprusno0.070.040.113,279n/a
    countriesCzechiano0.01−0.020.053,856n/a
    countriesDenmarkno0.060.030.104,678n/a
    countriesEcuadorno0.050.010.092,243n/a
    countriesEgyptno0.00−0.040.042,721n/a
    countriesEstoniayes−0.06−0.10−0.033,216n/a
    countriesEthiopiano0.110.070.161,914n/a
    countriesFinlandno0.190.150.232,897n/a
    countriesFranceno0.180.150.223,845n/a
    countriesGeorgiano0.050.020.084,283n/a
    countriesGermanyno0.140.110.168,654n/a
    countriesGhanano0.03−0.020.072,330n/a
    countriesGreeceyes0.290.250.332,118n/a
    countriesGuatemalano0.060.000.111,211n/a
    countriesHaitino0.01−0.030.051,929n/a
    countriesHong Kong SARno0.060.020.093,801n/a
    countriesHungaryno0.150.120.193,432n/a
    countriesIcelandno0.130.080.172,299n/a
    countriesIndiano0.120.100.155,785n/a
    countriesIndonesiano0.070.030.104,082n/a
    countriesIraqno0.070.010.13978n/a
    countriesIrelandyes0.220.140.29682n/a
    countriesItalyno0.190.160.233,515n/a
    countriesJapanno0.130.100.163,386n/a
    countriesKazakhstanno0.110.060.161,500n/a
    countriesKenyano−0.04−0.100.021,160n/a
    countriesKosovoyes−0.06−0.130.02650n/a
    countriesKyrgyzstanno0.180.130.231,458n/a
    countriesLatviano0.050.010.102,033n/a
    countriesLebanonno0.110.040.17834n/a
    countriesLibyano0.03−0.020.082,594n/a
    countriesLithuaniano0.120.070.161,812n/a
    countriesLuxembourgyes0.270.210.331,261n/a
    countriesMacau SARno0.06−0.010.12996n/a
    countriesMalaysiano0.150.110.182,613n/a
    countriesMaldivesno0.090.030.151,023n/a
    countriesMalino0.01−0.040.071,140n/a
    countriesMaltano0.07−0.010.15770n/a
    countriesMexicono0.100.070.134,781n/a
    countriesMoldovano0.050.000.101,657n/a
    countriesMongoliano0.200.150.251,611n/a
    countriesMontenegrono0.150.090.211,218n/a
    countriesMoroccono0.04−0.010.081,914n/a
    countriesNetherlandsno0.130.100.157,785n/a
    countriesNew Zealandno0.130.080.181,361n/a
    countriesNicaraguano0.02−0.050.08871n/a
    countriesNigeriano0.040.000.082,929n/a
    countriesNorth Macedoniano0.090.040.141,729n/a
    countriesNorthern Irelandno0.160.080.24763n/a
    countriesNorwayno0.090.060.133,144n/a
    countriesPakistanno0.170.110.221,200n/a
    countriesPalestineno0.090.020.16728n/a
    countriesPeruno0.080.040.113,339n/a
    countriesPhilippinesno0.070.030.122,388n/a
    countriesPolandyes0.280.250.313,703n/a
    countriesPortugalno0.150.090.201,954n/a
    countriesPuerto Ricono0.03−0.030.091,042n/a
    countriesRomaniano0.01−0.020.044,728n/a
    countriesRussiano0.110.070.144,411n/a
    countriesRwandano0.00−0.040.042,554n/a
    countriesSerbiano0.080.040.123,715n/a
    countriesSingaporeno0.110.060.151,740n/a
    countriesSlovakiano−0.01−0.050.033,257n/a
    countriesSloveniayes0.330.300.363,098n/a
    countriesSouth Africano0.070.040.115,568n/a
    countriesSouth Koreano0.060.020.103,631n/a
    countriesSpainyes0.360.330.394,244n/a
    countriesSwedenno0.03−0.010.064,155n/a
    countriesSwitzerlandno0.090.070.125,138n/a
    countriesTaiwan ROCno0.02−0.020.053,561n/a
    countriesTajikistanyes0.270.220.321,200n/a
    countriesThailandno0.02−0.020.053,656n/a
    countriesTrinidad and Tobagono0.02−0.040.081,210n/a
    countriesTunisiano0.110.070.161,681n/a
    countriesTurkeyno0.210.190.246,438n/a
    countriesUkraineno0.100.060.154,601n/a
    countriesUnited Kingdomno0.120.090.156,155n/a
    countriesUnited Statesyes0.280.250.315,858n/a
    countriesUruguayno0.200.160.242,586n/a
    countriesUzbekistanno0.190.110.27615n/a
    countriesVenezuelano−0.04−0.090.021,190n/a
    countriesVietnamno0.090.030.141,373n/a
    countriesZambiano−0.02−0.080.04946n/a
    countriesZimbabweyes−0.04−0.090.002,627n/a
    The United States dots lie to the right of the European and world averages on both measures, and a higher correlation means that more religious respondents placed themselves further right. Each dot is a correlation inside one country or an average across countries, and the rows share one scale even though the survey items differ. Lines on averages are 95% intervals from a bootstrap over countries.Note: The WVS/EVS file holds ten EVS countries with no country label; they are restored from the country code, and 9 of them enter here. Without them the world mean is +0.10.Note: Europe in the WVS/EVS excludes Turkey and the Caucasus and Central Asian countries. A country needs an effective sample of 300 or more. Northern Ireland is a separate WVS/EVS entry.Note: The rank comparison uses only the WVS/EVS rows, where every country answered the same question.Source: General Social Survey, 2006-2024; European Social Survey, rounds 3-11 (2006-2023); World Values Survey and European Values Study, fieldwork 2005-2023; weighted, with equal weight for each country in averages

    The rank comparison uses only the WVS/EVS, where every country answered the same question. Attendance gives the same contrast on other surveys. The correlation of attendance with self-placed ideology in the GSS from 2006 to 2024 is +0.25 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.26)+0.25 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with self-placed ideologyInterval95% CI 0.23 to 0.26n27,953Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance and self-placed ideologyPeriod2006-2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in the United States, and the mean across 3636 countEstimandcount of countriesWeightsnone (count)PopulationEuropean countries in the ESS with an effective sample of 300 or morePeriodESS rounds 3 to 11SourceEuropean Social Survey European countries in the European Social Survey (ESS) is +0.11 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.14)+0.11 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandmean across countries of the within-country correlation of left-right with attendance (percentile bootstrap over countries)Interval95% CI 0.08 to 0.14n36Weightsweight (analysis weight) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulationEuropean countries in the ESS with an effective sample of 300 or morePeriodESS rounds 3 to 11 (2006-2023)SourceEuropean Social Survey. The two projects also order countries alike: across the 3636 countEstimandcount of countriesWeightsnone (count)Populationcountries with a usable correlation in both the WVS/EVS and the ESSPeriod2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS countries that both surveyed, the attendance correlations in the WVS/EVS and the ESS correlate at +0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.90)+0.81 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1EstimandPearson correlation across countries of the WVS/EVS and ESS attendance correlations (Fisher z interval on the number of countries)Interval95% CI 0.66 to 0.90n36Weightsweight (S017) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulationcountries with a usable attendance correlation in both surveysPeriod2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS, with a mean absolute difference of 0.040.04 absolute difference between two correlation coefficients (no sign)Estimandmean absolute difference between the WVS/EVS and ESS attendance correlationsWeightsweight (S017) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulationcountries with a usable attendance correlation in both surveysPeriod2005 or laterSourceWorld Values Survey and EVS.

    In the GSS the correlation is higher in 2024 than in 2002

    A rising correlation would make the United States a place where the tie between religiosity and the right is still growing, and the data do not settle it. In the GSS the correlation of attendance with ideology was +0.18 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.24)+0.18 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with self-placed ideologyInterval95% CI 0.11 to 0.24n1,325Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and self-placed ideologyPeriod2002SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2002 and +0.30 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.34)+0.30 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with self-placed ideologyInterval95% CI 0.25 to 0.34n3,137Weightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance and self-placed ideologyPeriod2024SourceGeneral Social Survey in 2024. The 2024 value falls in the web era: in 2022 and 2024 pooled the correlation was +0.22 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.27)+0.22 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with self-placed ideologyInterval95% CI 0.16 to 0.27n2,512Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationin-person GSS respondents with attendance and self-placed ideologyPeriod2022 and 2024, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey among in-person respondents and +0.33 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.37)+0.33 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with self-placed ideologyInterval95% CI 0.28 to 0.37n3,331Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationweb GSS respondents with attendance and self-placed ideologyPeriod2022 and 2024, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey among web respondents, and the in-person 2018 interval overlaps the 2002 interval, so the separation between 2002 and 2024 rests on the web-era point. In the CES the correlation was +0.34 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.35)+0.34 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with five-point ideologyInterval95% CI 0.32 to 0.35n29,793Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents with attendance and five-point ideologyPeriod2008SourceCooperative Election Study in 2008, +0.27 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.28)+0.27 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with five-point ideologyInterval95% CI 0.26 to 0.28n51,265Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents with attendance and five-point ideologyPeriod2010SourceCooperative Election Study in 2010 and +0.33 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.34)+0.33 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of church attendance with five-point ideologyInterval95% CI 0.32 to 0.34n55,195Weightsweight_cumulativePopulationCES respondents with attendance and five-point ideologyPeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024. In a fixed panel of 1515 countEstimandcount of countriesWeightsnone (count)PopulationEuropean countries in every ESS round from 1 to 11PeriodESS rounds 1 to 11SourceEuropean Social Survey European countries present in every ESS round, the mean correlation was +0.17 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.20)+0.17 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandmean across the 15 countries of the within-country correlation of left-right with attendance (percentile bootstrap over countries)Interval95% CI 0.14 to 0.20n26,103Weightsweight (analysis weight) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulation15 European countries in every ESS roundPeriodESS round 1 (2002)SourceEuropean Social Survey in 2002 and +0.15 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.21)+0.15 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandmean across the 15 countries of the within-country correlation of left-right with attendance (percentile bootstrap over countries)Interval95% CI 0.10 to 0.21n22,401Weightsweight (analysis weight) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulation15 European countries in every ESS roundPeriodESS round 11 (2023)SourceEuropean Social Survey in 2023, a paired change of −0.02 (95% CI −0.06 to 0.03)−0.02 change in the correlation coefficient between ESS round 1 and round 11Estimandmean across the countries of the round 11 correlation minus the round 1 correlation (percentile bootstrap over countries)Interval95% CI −0.06 to 0.03n48,504Weightsweight (analysis weight) within each country; each country counted once across countriesPopulation15 European countries in every ESS roundPeriodESS rounds 1 (2002) and 11 (2023)SourceEuropean Social SurveyNoten is the number of respondents in rounds 1 and 11 together; the interval comes from a bootstrap over the 15 countries. (Figure 8).The panel mean hides movements in both directions: the correlation rose in 66 countEstimandcount of countries whose correlation is higher in round 11 than in round 1Weightsnone (count)PopulationEuropean countries in every ESS round from 1 to 11PeriodESS rounds 1 to 11SourceEuropean Social Survey of the countries and fell in 99 countEstimandcount of countries whose correlation is lower in round 11 than in round 1Weightsnone (count)PopulationEuropean countries in every ESS round from 1 to 11PeriodESS rounds 1 to 11SourceEuropean Social Survey, with the largest rise in Poland, from +0.20 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.25)+0.20 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of left-right with attendanceInterval95% CI 0.16 to 0.25n1,750Weightsweight (analysis weight) within the countryPopulationrespondents in Poland with a left-right answer and an attendance answerPeriodESS round 1 (2002)SourceEuropean Social Survey to +0.38 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.43)+0.38 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of left-right with attendanceInterval95% CI 0.33 to 0.43n1,282Weightsweight (analysis weight) within the countryPopulationrespondents in Poland with a left-right answer and an attendance answerPeriodESS round 11 (2023)SourceEuropean Social Survey, and the largest fall in Belgium, from +0.14 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.19)+0.14 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of left-right with attendanceInterval95% CI 0.08 to 0.19n1,627Weightsweight (analysis weight) within the countryPopulationrespondents in Belgium with a left-right answer and an attendance answerPeriodESS round 1 (2002)SourceEuropean Social Survey to −0.04 (95% CI −0.10 to 0.02)−0.04 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation of left-right with attendanceInterval95% CI −0.10 to 0.02n1,513Weightsweight (analysis weight) within the countryPopulationrespondents in Belgium with a left-right answer and an attendance answerPeriodESS round 11 (2023)SourceEuropean Social Survey. The direction of the United States series therefore depends on the survey and on the years compared. For attendance in Europe see Chapter 9.4, Secularization in Europe (planned).

    Figure 8

    The United States attendance-ideology correlation depends on the survey and the years compared, and a European panel shows no change

    Weighted correlation between church attendance and left-right or ideological self-placement, by survey year; the United States in the GSS and CES and a fixed panel of European countries in the ESS; 95% intervals

    Correlation of attendance with ideology

    Show data
    Data for The United States attendance-ideology correlation depends on the survey and the years compared, and a European panel shows no change
    SeriesYearCorrelationLowerUpperRespondents
    Europe, ESS20020.170.140.2026,103
    Europe, ESS20040.150.120.2025,153
    Europe, ESS20060.180.140.2225,528
    Europe, ESS20080.150.120.2025,843
    Europe, ESS20100.170.130.2125,234
    Europe, ESS20120.150.110.2026,600
    Europe, ESS20140.140.090.2025,084
    Europe, ESS20160.140.090.1924,898
    Europe, ESS20180.150.100.2123,263
    Europe, ESS20200.150.090.2129,750
    Europe, ESS20230.150.100.2122,401
    US, CES20080.340.320.3529,793
    US, CES20090.320.300.3412,123
    US, CES20100.270.260.2851,265
    US, CES20110.280.260.3018,198
    US, CES20120.310.300.3348,517
    US, CES20130.280.250.3014,509
    US, CES20140.290.280.3149,407
    US, CES20150.280.250.3012,719
    US, CES20160.290.280.3058,315
    US, CES20170.290.270.3116,175
    US, CES20180.330.320.3453,579
    US, CES20190.310.290.3316,287
    US, CES20200.310.300.3254,697
    US, CES20210.320.300.3323,134
    US, CES20220.330.320.3454,246
    US, CES20230.280.270.3021,693
    US, CES20240.330.320.3455,195
    US, GSS20020.180.110.241,325
    US, GSS20040.170.110.231,305
    US, GSS20060.230.190.264,322
    US, GSS20080.260.210.311,926
    US, GSS20100.210.160.261,968
    US, GSS20120.240.180.291,868
    US, GSS20140.280.240.322,438
    US, GSS20160.230.190.282,748
    US, GSS20180.240.190.292,235
    US, GSS20210.250.210.283,916
    US, GSS20220.250.200.303,395
    US, GSS20240.300.250.343,137
    The GSS line is higher in 2024 than in 2002, the CES line falls after 2008 and returns by 2018, and the European panel line stays level. Each line is one survey's correlation by year with a 95% interval band, and the European line is the mean over the countries that took part in every ESS round, placed at the year each round began. The shaded band marks the GSS years with web interviews, and the two rings are the GSS of 2022 and 2024 pooled, split by interview mode.Note: GSS 2021 to 2024 include web interviews: 2021 was mostly web, and 2022 and 2024 mixed in-person and web interviews. The 2024 point falls in that period, and the in-person 2018 interval overlaps the 2002 interval. The three surveys use different attendance and ideology items, so levels are compared less safely than trends.Note: ESS rounds are placed at the year fieldwork began; round 10 ran from 2020 to 2022 and round 11 began in 2023. The panel is the 15 countries present in every round: Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Slovenia.Note: The panel mean hides opposite movements: the correlation rose in 6 of the countries and fell in 9. The largest rise is in Poland, from +0.20 in 2002 to +0.38 in 2023, and the largest fall in Belgium, from +0.14 to −0.04.Source: General Social Survey, 2002-2024; Cooperative Election Study, 2008-2024; European Social Survey, rounds 1-11 (2002-2023); weighted

    What these data cannot show

    Every estimate here is an association between answers given by the same people in one interview, or between groups defined by such answers. The vote gap does not say that attendance moves the vote, the ideology slope does not say that attendance moves ideology, and the share accounted for by party does not say that party moves either one. The panel studies cited above find religious change that follows political orientation, and the surveys here have no panel, so they cannot say how much of each gap comes from people changing their attendance, their affiliation or their party, and how much from who joins and leaves the electorate.

    The GSS moved from in-person interviews to a mix that includes the web in 2021, and the chapter reports the split for 2022 and 2024 for the slope, the Republican-share gap and the attendance-ideology correlation. The ANES has included web interviews since 2012 and has no mode weights for 2020, and the chapter does not split its gap by mode. The CES is an opt-in online panel. The ideology and attendance items differ between the GSS and the CES, so levels are compared within a survey and trends are compared across surveys.

    The intervals treat each weighted sample as a simple random sample and ignore the strata and clusters of the sampling designs. The GSS design variables allow two checks. Cluster-robust standard errors for the yearly slopes are 0.920.92 ratio of the cluster-robust standard error to the HC3 standard error of the raw standardized slopeEstimandsmallest across survey years of the standard error with the primary sampling unit as the cluster over the standard error without clusteringWeightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identification (design variables available)PeriodGSS 1975 to 2024, 32 survey yearsSourceGeneral Social Survey to 1.151.15 ratio of the cluster-robust standard error to the HC3 standard error of the raw standardized slopeEstimandlargest across survey years of the standard error with the primary sampling unit as the cluster over the standard error without clusteringWeightsweight_usePopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identification (design variables available)PeriodGSS 1975 to 2024, 32 survey yearsSourceGeneral Social Survey times the HC3 standard errors, on both sides of one, and a bootstrap over primary sampling units gives the share of the rise that party accounts for as 46% (95% CI 33% to 66%)46% percent of the rise in the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandsame share as the main specification; percentile bootstrap over primary sampling units (respondents in 1974 stand alone, since the design variables start in 1975)Interval95% CI 33% to 66%n17,849Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey, against 46% (95% CI 33% to 67%)46% percent of the rise in the raw slope that the party control accounts forEstimandone minus the ratio of the rise in the slope net of party to the rise in the raw slope; percentile bootstrap over respondentsInterval95% CI 33% to 67%n17,849Weightsweight_use, rescaled to average one within each survey yearPopulationGSS respondents with attendance, self-placed ideology and party identificationPeriod1974 to 1978 and 2010 to 2018, pooledSourceGeneral Social Survey from a bootstrap over respondents. The ANES, CES, WVS, EVS and ESS estimates are not checked this way. Race and tradition enter only as views of one figure, with Black Protestants, Latino Catholics and non-Christian faiths left to the chapter on tradition and race. The cross-national comparison sets the correlation inside each country against an average of other countries, using different survey items, so it does not show why the tie is stronger where it is, and the data hold nothing on belief or on congregations and cannot separate the effect of religion from that of the party system in each country.


    Data sources

    • ANES Cumulative Data FileTime Series Cumulative Data File, studies 1952 to 2020 (2024 religion and attendance codes excluded)Years: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study) · Weights: weight (VCF0009z) · License: Free download after accepting the ANES terms of use; cite the release.
    • Cooperative Election StudyCumulative Common Content, 2008 to 2024Years: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years) · Weights: weight_cumulative · License: See the provider's terms of use.
    • General Social SurveyCumulative file, 1972 to 2024, with interview mode from the raw fileYears: 1972-2024 (35 study years) · Weights: weight_use · License: See the provider's terms of use.
    • World Values Survey and EVSWorld Values Survey and European Values Study, fieldwork 2005 to 2023; ten EVS country labels restoredYears: 1981-2023 (7 unified waves) · Weights: weight (S017) within each country; every country counted once across countries · License: Free download with registration; users must cite the release.
    • European Social SurveyEuropean Social Survey rounds 1 to 11; attendance and left-right self-placementYears: 2002-2023 (rounds 1 to 11; round 11 was fielded in 2023 and 2024) · Weights: weight (analysis weight) within each country · License: Open access after free registration in the ESS Data Portal; follow the ESS data citation requirements.

    All data sources

    Methods

    Sample. Reported two-party presidential voters in the ANES Time Series Cumulative Data File (studies from 1952 to 2020; attendance is asked from 1970) and in the Cooperative Election Study (presidential years 2008 to 2024, weight_cumulative); General Social Survey respondents 1972 to 2024 (weight_use, with the interview mode joined from the raw file); World Values Survey and European Values Study respondents with fieldwork in 2005 or later; European Social Survey rounds 1 to 11. The cumulative ANES file's 2024 religion and attendance codes are unusable (the count of Protestants falls from 3,180 in 2020 to 835 in 2024 while Catholics are stable, and 49% of 2024 respondents have a valid attendance answer against 99% in 2020), so every ANES series ends in 2020 and 2024 comes from the CES. Groups. Attendance groups follow the ANES three-category item and are cut as closely as each source allows: frequent is weekly or nearly weekly (ANES Often, GSS attend 6 to 8), which in the CES is weekly or more (5 and 6 on the six-point item) because the CES has no nearly-weekly answer; occasional is monthly; seldom is a few times a year or never. Party identification includes leaners (GSS partyid 0 to 2 Democratic, 3 independent, 4 to 6 Republican; CES pid7 1 to 3, 4 and 5 to 7); pure independents are left out of the Republican share and are a category in the party control. The CES party and ideology series use every CES year from 2008 to 2024, and the vote series the presidential years. Estimands. The attendance gap is the weighted Democratic share of the two-party vote among seldom attenders minus that among frequent attenders; the denominational gap is Catholics minus Protestants, and the CES contrast for the unaffiliated is the unaffiliated minus Protestants. The slope is the weighted least squares coefficient of ideology (GSS polviews 1 to 7; CES five-point ideology with not sure missing) on attendance (GSS 0 to 8; CES 1 to 6), both standardized once on the whole common sample of respondents with attendance, ideology and party (GSS 1974 to 2024; CES 2008 to 2024), fitted year by year raw and with the party control on the same respondents (two indicators for Republican and independent, or six indicators for seven categories). A rise is the late slope minus the early slope; the share accounted for by party is one minus the ratio of the rise net of party to the raw rise. Windows of several survey years rescale each year's weights to average one. The cultural index averages the weighted z-scores of five GSS items (homosexuality, premarital sex, extramarital sex, pornography law, abortion for any reason) and the economic index those of three (help for the poor, help for the sick, government action on income differences), each with at least two answers; the economic items are asked from 1975, so both indices and their correlations start there, the first period holds the surveys of 1975, 1983 and 1984 only, and the correlation with self-placed ideology uses the same survey years. Cross-national correlations are weighted Pearson correlations of left-right self-placement with the importance of God (WVS/EVS), or with attendance (ESS rounds 3 to 11 pooled; the GSS for the United States, 2006 to 2024). Intervals. Weighted shares and means use the Kish effective sample size and a normal interval, which treats the weighted sample as a simple random sample and ignores stratification and clustering, which can raise or lower the variance; the same formula is used for the CES, an opt-in panel, and its interval does not cover the error that comes from how respondents were recruited; gaps combine the two standard errors; correlations use Fisher z on the Kish effective sample size; year-by-year slopes use HC3 robust errors; rises and the shares of a rise or of a slope that party accounts for use a percentile bootstrap over respondents (the estimate is recomputed on 2,000 resamples of the respondents drawn with replacement, each window resampled separately, seed 12345, and the interval is read from the percentiles of the results); means across countries count each country once and use the same bootstrap over countries; the correlation between the WVS/EVS and ESS country values uses Fisher z on the number of countries. The GSS design variables are used for two checks: cluster-robust errors on the primary sampling unit change the standard errors of the yearly slopes by a median ratio of 1.01 against the HC3 errors (range 0.92 to 1.15), and a bootstrap over primary sampling units gives the main share as 46% (95% interval 33% to 66%) against 46% (33% to 67%) from the bootstrap over respondents. The shares and correlations of the ANES, CES, WVS/EVS and ESS are not checked this way. Suppression. A subgroup-year cell needs at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of the same size; a yearly regression needs 200 respondents; a country correlation needs an effective sample of 300; no published cell rests on fewer than 30 respondents. Countries. The cleaned WVS/EVS file has a blank country label for ten EVS countries; they are restored from the country code and 9 of them have a usable correlation. Europe in the WVS/EVS is the region Europe and Central Asia without Turkey and the Caucasus and Central Asian countries. The European time series uses the 15 countries in every ESS round and places each round at the year fieldwork began. Mode. GSS interviews were in person, with some by telephone, through 2018, mostly on the web in 2021, and a mix of in-person and web interviews in 2022 and 2024; the CES is online throughout. Estimates from 2021 on are reported with a mode split or a mode note: the split covers the slope, the Republican-share gap and the attendance-ideology correlation in 2022 and 2024, and the party comparison of the text uses the in-person surveys of 2010 to 2018 with the 2018 to 2024 window as a second comparison. The ANES mixes in-person and web interviews from 2012 and has no mode weights in 2020, and its vote gap is not split by mode.

    References

    1. Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.
    2. Layman, Geoffrey C. (2001). The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. Columbia University Press.
    3. Putnam, Robert D.; Campbell, David E. (2010). American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. Simon and Schuster.
    4. Margolis, Michele F. (2018). From Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity. University of Chicago Press.
    5. Campbell, David E.; Layman, Geoffrey C.; Green, John C.; Sumaktoyo, Nathanael G. (2018). Putting Politics First: The Impact of Politics on American Religious and Secular Orientations. American Journal of Political Science 62(3): 551-565. doi:10.1111/ajps.12365

    How to cite

    @misc{singh2026thegodgapinamerica,
      author = {Singh, Vishal},
      title = {The god gap in America},
      year = {2026},
      url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-god-gap-in-america},
      note = {In The Public Mind. Published 30 September 2026.}
    }

    Same question at another grain

    These chapters take up the same axis with a different unit of analysis: individuals, places or countries.

    Reading paths