Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Darren E. Sherkat
Department of Sociology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,
Illinois, USA
Atheism, agnosticism, and undoubting belief in a one true god are pivotal
issues distinguishing religious adherents. Shifts in the rates of atheism
and agnosticism can influence the composition of religious markets.
Demand side rational actor models and the new demographic approach
to religious commitments emphasize the influence of life course dynamics
on religious desires. I examine multiple predictors of different types of belief
in God using data from the General Social Surveys. I employ ordinal logistic
regression to test the effects of social status, gender, race, region and city size,
family structure, and denominational affiliation on the odds of being an
atheist, agnostic, doubting believer, or a consistent believer. I also examine
trends in these belief configurations, and whether cohort variations might
evidence a coming shift in the relative rates of belief and unbelief.
Not everyone desires religious goods, and the lust for supernatural
rewards and compensators may fluctuate over the life course and
in response to social forces. Demographic changes can influence a
variety of religious commitments, and recent examinations have
focused on the impact of demographic transitions and dynamics on
religious participation, affiliation, and belief (Edgell 2005; Greeley
and Hout 1999; Hout et al. 2001; Hout and Fischer 2002; Myers
1996; Stolzenberg et al. 1995; Wilson and Sherkat 1994). A dynamic
A version of this article was presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Religion, Kansas City, MO, 2004. Data from the National Opinion Research
Center General Social Surveys were made available through the Interuniversity Consortium for
Political and Social Research.
Address correspondence to Darren E. Sherkat, Department of Sociology, SIU, Carbondale,
IL 62901, USA. E-mail: Sherkat@siu.edu
439
440
D. E. Sherkat
441
an agentic divine being, and will weigh heavy for producing doubt
and certainty in the existence of God.
Aging is a process that leads to death, and as humans age, there is
increased attention to personal mortality. Impending doom will likely
cause reflection on the value of supernatural compensators, and an
unwavering faith in a divine being capable of delivering an afterlife
could be a powerful supernatural rewardan explanation that
has actual this-worldly value based on the existential certainty it
generates. Given this, it can be expected that age will have a positive
impact on theistic certainty, and should be negatively related to
atheism.
Parental roles and their configuration with other social roles
help forge schemata relevant for the performance of parenting
(MacMillan and Copher 2005; Elder et al. 2003). The birth of
children and the social expectations governing parental roles help
to produce strong desires for the health, safety, and well-being of progeny. Having children is a key event in most humans lives, connecting them to a cycle of life, to a future that will (usually) live beyond
their earthly years. Even hardened atheists marvel at the miracle of
birth, and peoples feelings for their children, indeed any child, are
often tinged with an inexplicable dimension that approaches the types
of specific supernatural rewards generated by client cults (Stark and
Bainbridge 1985, 1987). Humans cannot fully protect their children,
and gods are quite useful for providing comforting explanations
about the well-being of our future, and that of our children. Indeed,
reasonable people may well care less about their own eternal futures
than those of their children and may ignore the importance of supernatural compensators until the birth of children. In contrast
to the expectations of supply side theories, such a shift in the desire
for religion is not a function of changes in religious human
capital stocks, and may happen in the absence of substantial religious
experience required for the formation of cultural capital.
Similarly, marriage, divorce, and widowhood are important life
events that cause reflection on the meaning, purpose, and trajectory
of life (Waite and Gallagher 2000; Waite and Lehrer 2003). Commitment to another in marriage establishes a relationship that is almost
always linked to childrearing, and is explicitly forged with a focus on
human frailtythe common vow till death do us part renders marriage an event that evokes the limited capacity of human lives. Given
this, marriage may help crystallize certainty about supernatural
compensators and the existence of gods. Further, the direct experience of the death of a spouse can be expected to inform beliefs. Death
of a loved one is both a traumatic loss and a cause for reflection on
442
D. E. Sherkat
our own mortality. The desire to be reunited with lost loved ones in
an afterlife can be quite strong, and is a primary supernatural
compensator of many religious traditions. Overcoming death through
an afterlife is a powerful compensator because it might enable
reunification with lost relations, and especially with a spouse,
parents, or children (Greeley and Hout 1999).
Not all life events will generate a stronger faith in the existence of
divine beings. Indeed, even widowhood may generate ambivalent
feelings. While some people may yearn for supernatural reunification,
others may question the existence of a god that would allow human
suffering. Divorce is another event that may shake peoples faith in
divine beings. The experience of struggle, torment, and suffering
may promote a more doubtful and this-worldly approach to cultural
goods. When everything is uncertain, worldly factors may become
more valued.
Stratification positions have long been linked to views of the
gods, generally linked to theodicies suggesting that more fortunate
individuals value this-worldly types of religion, while less fortunate
people desire otherworldly supernatural compensators (Weber
[1922] 1993). It is less clear how positions in the stratification system
might influence beliefs in gods in contemporary societies, particularly
since fundamentalist religious values are linked to lower levels of
educational attainment and low rates of female labor force participation (Darnell and Sherkat 1997; Glass and Jacobs 2005; Keister
2003, 2008; Lehrer 1995, 1999, 2004; Sherkat 2000; Sherkat and
Darnell 1999). Certainty of belief is more compatible with rich sets
of general supernatural compensators, which Weber ([1922] 1993)
implied are favored by the lower classes. In contrast, Weberian
theorizing suggests that worldly rewards may reduce the attractiveness or valuation of otherworldly compensators, and success in this
world may lead to doubt. Further, higher levels of educational attainment may generate a more critical approach to faithperhaps even
embracing doubt as a component of religious value. Here, the issue
is not one of negotiating religious strictness or worldly demands
coming from faith, but rather the educated may develop greater
cognitive sophistication (Sherkat 2006), which leads to a more critical
view of faith. Indeed, educated Christians, for example, may be more
aware that Jesus expressed doubt.
Communities are powerful sources of preferences, leading people
to dismiss potential alternatives for the consumption of a variety of
goods (whether foreign cars, ethnic food, or alternative religious
ideas). Embeddedness in rural and regional communities can lead
to an unquestioning acceptance of articles of faith. Preferences will
443
DATA
I examine data from the 19882000 General Social Surveys (GSS).
The GSS is a representative sample of noninstitutionalized English
speaking adults, and in these survey years it asked a crucial question
about specific beliefs in god. During this time frame, the GSS was
not conducted in 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997, and 1999. Across these
survey years, 8,027 respondents have valid answers to the dependent
variable. The question about beliefs in god was not asked in the 2002
or 2004 editions of the GSS.
Dependent Variable: Belief in God
GSS interviewers asked respondents Which statement comes closest
to expressing what you believe about god?: (1) I know that god
exists and I have no doubts about it; (2) While I have doubts, I feel
that I do believe in god; (3) I find myself believing in god some of
the time, but not at others; (4) I dont believe in a personal god,
but I do believe in a higher power of some kind; (5) I dont know
whether there is a god, and I dont believe there is any way to find
out; and (6) I dont believe in god.
Trends, Cohorts, and Age
The age and cohort dynamics of beliefs in god are difficult to assess.
I present the trends in beliefs over GSS years. Second, I investigate
associations with age using five-year age groups. Third, I examine
cohort variations in beliefs across ten-year birth cohorts. Finally,
I compare the relative fit of models specifying a linear age effect,
and models using ten-year birth cohorts.
Marriage and Family Factors
A variety of family structure factors should impact beliefs about
god. Experiencing marriage, widowhood, and divorce are key, and
I compare these respondents to those who never married. Preliminary
analyses revealed that divorce is best looked at using the separate
ever divorced indicator. I employ three dummy variables: Married,
444
D. E. Sherkat
widowed, and never divorced and compare these to the omitted never
married category. Additionally, I examine the impact of children
on beliefs in god using a measure of the number of children in the
household. I cannot always be certain whether or not family factors influence beliefs, or if long-held beliefs influence the family
outcomes. There is no reason to expect that peoples beliefs in god
drive widowhoodthough it may negatively influence remarriage
(Brown and Xu 2006). Religious beliefs are almost certain to
impact divorce and fertility. Still, marriage, divorce, widowhood,
and childrearing are important life events that will spur contemplation and reassessment of beliefs.
Religious Identification
Religious identification is examined using twelve categories conventional to sociological research (Sherkat 2001): (1) Liberal Protestant
(Presbyterians, United Church of Christ [Congregationalist],
Unitarian); (2) Episcopalian; (3) Moderate Protestant (Methodist,
Disciples of Christ, Brethren, Reformed); (4) Lutheran; (5) Baptist;
(6) Conservative Protestant (Assembly of God, Nazarene, Churches
of Christ, Pentecostal Holiness, etc.); (7) Mormon; (8) Other
Protestant; (9) Catholic; (10) Jewish; (11) Other Religion; and
(12) None. In the multivariate analyses, I combine Baptists,
Conservative Protestants, and Mormons into a dummy indicator
for sectarian groups. I also employ binary indicators for Catholics
and respondents with no religious affiliation.
Education and Income
Educational attainment is measured in terms of degree attainment
using an ordinal measure ranging from (0) no high school degree;
(1) high school degree; (2) associate degree; (3) four year degree; (4)
graduate degree. I employ a measure of household income, which is
standardized to maximize comparability across survey years. This indicator is a z-score (mean 0, standard deviation 1) calculated for the
respective household income variables (INCOME86, INCOME92,
or INCOME98).
Demographics
I distinguish respondents who were lifelong residents of the South
and respondents who were lifelong residents of nonmetropolitan
areas using dummy variables. I also employ binary indicators
445
ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES
I assess the basic distribution of beliefs in god, and their variation
across religious groups and levels of church attendance. Second,
I examine trends in beliefs in god across years of the GSS, five-year
age groups, and across birth cohorts. Finally, I present estimates
from an ordinal logistic regression model predicting beliefs in god.
Because there were some departures from ordinal effects, I will also
provide interpretations of some of the parameters from a multinomial
logistic regression model.
GSS results in Figure 1 show that the vast majority of Americans,
over sixty-four percent, report believing in god with no doubts. The
next most popular response was to believe with occasional doubt,
with nearly seventeen percent of respondents holding this position.
Fewer respondents, only 4.4 percent, chose the more doubtful
response of sometimes believing in god. More than eight percent of
GSS respondents reported that they dont believe in god, but do
believe in a higher power. Four percent gave the classic agnostic
response, while 2.5 percent embraced atheism. Low rates of selfprofessed atheism may, in part, reflect social desirability biases, since
atheists are viewed harshly in American society (Edgell et al. 2006).
446
D. E. Sherkat
447
202
2.6%
1675
Total
L2
55 D. F.
4.1%
325
4.2%
4.7%
2.0% (3.4)
2.2% (2.2)
1.2% (5.3)
.3% (4.9)
0 (2.1)
2.3%
2.1% (4.5)
22.6% (11.6)
6.3%
18.7% (20.0)
Agnostic
8.3%
671
13.2% (3.5)
10.6%
7.3%
7.0%
2.9% (6.9)
1.3% (6.2)
1.8% (2.4)
9.1%
6.2% (3.2)
15.9% (3.4)
21.4% (6.5)
23.5% (14.7)
Higher power
4.2%
331
4.5%
4.7%
3.9%
4.5%
2.4% (3.1)
2.5% (2.1)
1.8%
3.3%
4.6%
11.6% (4.7)
4.9%
6.2% (2.8)
Believe sometimes
16.6%
1331
21.9% (2.7)
23.5% (2.2)
19.4% (2.2)
21.9% (2.9)
11.1% (5.0)
5.8% (6.8)
9.0% (2.0)
14.2%
20.8% (4.6)
20.7%
12.6%
15.5%
Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in parentheses.
2.8%
.6%
1.2% (2.7)
.2% (3.3)
1.3% (3.0)
1.6%
2.7%
1.3%
.9% (4.7)
2.4%
4.4%
13.8% (19.6)
Atheist
Liberal Protestant
Episcopalian
Moderate Protestant
Lutheran
Baptist
Sect
Mormon
Other Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
None
Church attendance
64.2%
5166
53.4%
55.9%
66.2%
64.2%
81.1%
88.3%
84.7%
69.8%
65.3%
26.8%
50.5%
22.2%
(6.0)
(2.5)
(14.6)
(7.8)
(7.8)
(2.7)
(2.8)
True believer
100.0%
8027
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
448
100.0%
1706
Total
L2
40 D.F.
100.0%
49.1% (13.8)
11.6%
18.4% (3.2)
11.6%
2.8% (3.2)
2.5% (3.9)
1.3% (3.5)
2.8% (6.7)
0 (4.9)
Agnostic
100.0%
35.8% (11.6)
16.2% (6.9)
18.1% (4.3)
13.1%
7.4%
5.3% (3.1)
1.2% (5.0)
2.4% (9.9)
.5% (6.6)
Higher power
100.0%
25.4% (3.6)
15.6% (4.4)
21.7% (4.9)
14.7%
8.3%
6.1%
2.4% (2.6)
5.8% (5.6)
0 (4.9)
Believe sometimes
100.0%
18.7%
11.6% (3.9)
17.1% (5.0)
16.0% (3.6)
9.8% (2.5)
8.7%
4.7%
12.3% (5.9)
1.1% (8.4)
Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in parentheses.
53.5% (12.4)
7.5%
12.0%
5.0% (3.0)
5.0%
3.0% (2.8)
4.0%
6.5% (4.1)
3.5% (2.0)
Atheist
Never
Less than once a year
Once a year
Several times a year
Once a month
2-3 times a month
Nearly every week
Every week
More than once a week
Church attendance
100.0%
10.4% (11.7)
6.0% (6.0)
9.3% (6.1)
11.7%
7.9%
10.3% (3.2)
7.6% (4.5)
25.9% (10.5)
11.0% (9.5)
True believer
100.0%
17.1%
8.4%
12.2%
12.5%
7.9%
8.9%
6.0%
19.4%
7.4%
Total
449
D. E. Sherkat
450
Table 3.
Survey
year
Atheist
Agnostic
Higher
power
Believe
with
doubt
Believe
sometimes
True
believer Total
1988
1991
1993
1994
1998
2000
18.9% (2.6)
18.2%
15.0%
16.1%
14.7% (2.0)
16.5%
63.5%
62.8%
66.3%
64.9%
62.8%
65.8%
Total
2.5%
4.0%
16.6%
64.4% 100.0%
X2
56
25 D. F.
8.4%
4.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in
parentheses.
With only twelve years spanned by the GSS data, cohort differences in religious belief may provide a more accurate projection of
the future belief structure of the US population. While younger
cohorts do have lower rates of unwavering faith in gods, looking
across cohorts in Table 4 it seems as if this may be explained by simple aging effect, rather than a cohort effect that would lead to cohort
replacement. While about fifty-seven percent of those born between
1970 and 1984 profess unwavering faith that god exists nearly
seventy-four percent of those born before 1919 believe in god without
doubts. Belief with some doubt is higher than expected under the
model of independence among cohorts born after 1950, while
Table 4.
Birth year
19701984
19601969
19501959
19401949
19301939
19201929
18831919
Atheist
Agnostic
Higher
power
Believe
sometimes
Believe
with
doubt
True
believer
Total
10.1%
7.9%
8.8%
10.1% (2.6)
7.5%
6.3% (2.2)
6.4%
3.3%
20.8% (3.2) 56.5% (4.6)
5.2% (2.5) 19.2% (3.4) 61.0% (3.4)
3.6%
18.8% (2.8) 61.0% (3.4)
4.5%
14.0% (2.8) 65.2%
4.2%
14.4%
69.0% (3.0)
4.0%
12.1% (3.6) 72.2% (4.9)
3.4%
12.4% (2.9) 73.8% (5.4)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
2.5%
4.1%
8.3%
4.1%
100%
L2
134
30 D. F.
16.6%
2.5%
Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in
parentheses.
451
Age
1824
2529
3034
3539
4044
4549
5054
5559
6064
6569
7074
7579
8084
85 and up
Agnostic
Higher
power
3.2
2.9
2.7
2.1
2.9
2.3
3.5
1.9
1.8
2.8
1.3
1.6
2.7
1.4
5.4%
4.8%
3.7%
6.0% (3.2)
3.6%
4.4%
3.0%
3.2%
4.6%
2.1% (2.1)
2.0% (2.1)
2.9%
3.4%
2.1%
9.8%
7.5%
8.3%
9.0%
10.0%
9.0%
8.6%
8.2%
7.9%
8.0%
4.5% (2=8)
6.1%
7.4%
7.5%
55.3%
59.4%
62.9%
60.5%
62.0%
64.1%
67.5%
70.8%
66.0%
69.5%
77.4%
72.5%
73.0%
75.3%
(5.4) 100.0%
(3.2) 100.0%
100.0%
(2.7) 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(3.0) 100.0%
100.0%
(2.3) 100.0%
(5.6) 100.0%
(3.1) 100.0%
(2.2) 100.0%
(2.8) 100.0%
8.4%
4.1%
64.4%
100.0%
Total
2.5
4.0%
L2
169
65 D. F.
Believe
sometimes
Believe
with
doubt
Atheist
(%)
16.6%
True
believer
Total
Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in
parentheses.
452
D. E. Sherkat
453
X2
7949
863, 12 D. F.
3.50
2.49
1.52
1.21
.28
.624=1.87
.758=2.13
.325=1.38
.016=.98
.079=.92
.421=1.52
.440=1.55
.131=1.14
.113=1.12
.326=1.39
.714=2.04
.008=1.01
Model 1
Logit=exp(logit)
Age
19701984 Cohort
19601969 Cohort
19501959 Cohort
19401949 Cohort
19301939 Cohort
19201929 Cohort
Female
African American
Other Race
Income
Education
Married
Widowed
Ever Divorced
Children
Rural
Southern
Sect
Catholic
No Religious Affiliation
Intercept 1
Intercept 2
Intercept 3
Intercept 4
Intercept 5
Table 6.
7949
868, 17 D. F.
4.00
2.99
2.02
1.71
.78
.342=.71
.257=.77
.370=.69
.183=.83
.042=.96
.004=1.00
.623=1.86
.765=2.15
.311=1.36
.008=.99
.077=.92
.449=1.57
.499=1.65
.185=1.20
.122=1.13
.332=1.39
.713=2.04
Model 2
Logit=exp(logit)
7949
1781, 15 D. F.
.538=1.71
.636=1.89
.344=1.41
.029=.97
.065=.94
.287=1.33
.317=1.37
.092=1.10
.080=1.08
.244=1.28
.505=1.66
.915=2.50
.347=1.41
1.769=.17
3.87
2.78
1.69
1.33
.29
.005=1.01
Model 3
Logit=exp(logit)
7949
1778, 20 D. F.
.238=.79
.257=.82
.293=.75
.201=.82
.131=.88
.074=.93
.540=1.72
.654=1.92
.330=1.39
.020=.98
.063=.94
.333=1.40
.374=1.45
.157=1.17
.080=1.08
.250=1.28
.504=1.66
.911=2.49
.345=1.41
1.763=.17
4.25
3.15
2.06
1.70
.67
Model 4
Logit=exp(logit)
454
D. E. Sherkat
455
As people get older, they come to hold more certain beliefs about
god. Strength in commitment to religious beliefs appears to grow over
the life course as a fairly linear function of age. The one departure is
that atheism also seems to crystallize with age. Hence, I found that
belief certainty grows over timecertainty of belief in god, or
certainty that gods do not exist. Belief in god does not appear to be fading. There are no trends revealing an increase in atheism or a decrease
in belief certainty. Nor are there substantial cohort variations suggesting that cohort replacement will eventually cause increases in atheism
or decreases in certainty. While the 19501959 birth cohorts are somewhat less certain in their religious beliefs compared to older and
younger cohorts, the relationship between beliefs in god and age
appears to be more of a function of age than cohort differences.
And, cohorts born after 1959 appear to be more faithful than the
19501959 cohorts. Unfortunately, the GSS only carried this particular
belief item for a relatively short time sequence. With a longer time
sequence, it would be possible to separate age and cohort effects in a
more systematic fashion (Yang 2006; Yang and Land 2006, 2008).
Marital events and childrearing are also associated with variations
in beliefs about god. Married and widowed respondents were found
to have substantially more certainty in the existence of god when
compared to divorced and never married respondents. Widowhood,
however, did not either shake or bolster faith when compared to
married respondents who had not experienced the death of a spouse.
Having children also increases confidence in the existence of god.
Marriage, child birth, divorce, and widowhood are important life
course events, which likely cause reflection on the meaning and
permanence of earthly existence. However, with the exception of
widowhood, these life course events are selectiveand religious
factors are known to increase rates of marriage and fertility, and
lower the likelihood of divorce (Sherkat and Ellison 1999). Future
work should focus on charting the effects of religious beliefs and ties
on life course events, and life course events on religious commitments. To do this, researchers will need high quality longitudinal
data with multi-wave indicators of religious beliefs, participation,
and affiliation.
Educational attainment decreases certainty in beliefs in God.
Educational attainment is especially predictive of agnosticism. While
I cannot be certain of the causal connection, the finding is in concert
with longitudinal research showing that educational attainment
decreases beliefs in the inerrancy of the bible (Sherkat 1998). Of
course, sectarian religious beliefs and affiliations are also associated
with low educational attainment (Darnell and Sherkat 1997; Lehrer
456
D. E. Sherkat
1999; Glass and Jacobs 2005). Net of education, income did not
effect beliefs about god. Future research should explore whether
occupational factors contribute to beliefs, and theorizing is needed
to identify occupational characteristics which might be associated
with particular religious beliefs.
Religious communities teach preferred explanations about the
supernatural. Mainline liberal Protestant groups profess a view
of the gods which is riddled with doubt, questioning of faith, and
even the rejection of old man in the sky images of gods (Stark
2000). Not surprisingly, I found that moderate and liberal Protestants
are substantially more likely to doubt the existence of god, and are
much more likely to think of god as a higher power rather than
a divine being with agency and motivation. This contrasts with
the certainty of beliefs in god held by conservative sectarians
and Catholics. The dynamics of belief niches for organizations is a
potentially important area of study, and it would be profitable to
examine the intersection between denominational and congregational
belief structures and individual beliefs. Such investigations could
examine how structural ties influence beliefs, as well as how beliefs
motivate ties and influence shifts in affiliation. These potential
advances could only be realized with multilevel longitudinal data.
REFERENCES
Bainbridge, William Sims. 2005. Atheism. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on
Religion 1:124.
Bishop, George. 1999. Americans Belief in God. Public Opinion Quarterly
63:421434.
Brown, Suzannah and Xiahe Xu. 2006. Religious Subcultural Variations in
Remarriage Timing: Evidence from the National Survey of Family Growth.
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological Society,
New Orleans, LA.
Darnell, Alfred and Darren E. Sherkat. 1997. The Impact of Protestant Fundamentalism on Educational Attainment. American Sociological Review 62:306316.
Edgell, Penny. 2005. Religion and Family in a Changing Society. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglass Hartmann. 2006. Atheists as Other:
Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society. American
Sociological Review 71:211234.
Elder, Glen H. Jr., Monica K. Johnson, & Robert Crosnoe. 2003. The Emergence
and Development of Life Course Theory. Pp. 322 in Handbook of the Life
Course, edited by Jeylan Mortimer and Michael Shanahan. New York: Plenum.
Ellison, Christopher G. and Darren E. Sherkat. 1995a. Is Sociology the Core
Discipline for the Scientific Study of Religion? Social Forces 73:12551266.
457
458
D. E. Sherkat
459
Waite, Linda J. and Evelyn Lehrer. 2003. The Benefits from Marriage and Religion
in the United States: A Comparative Analysis. Population and Development
Review 29:255275.
Waite, Linda J. and Maggie Gallagher. 2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married
People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. New York: Doubleday.
Weber, Max. [1922] 1993. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon Press.
Wilson, John and Darren E. Sherkat. 1994. Returning to the Fold. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 33:148161.
Yang, Yang. 2006. Bayesian Inference for Hierarchical Age-Period-Cohort Models
of Repeated Cross-Section Survey Data. Sociological Methodology 36:3974.
Yang, Yang and Kenneth C. Land. 2006. A Mixed Models Approach to AgePeriod-Cohort Analysis of Repeated Cross-Section Surveys: Trends in Verbal
Test Scores. Sociological Methodology 36:7597.
. 2008. Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of Repeated Cross Section Surveys:
Fixed or Random Effects? Sociological Methods and Research 36 (Special
Issue):297326.