Religious Pluralism and Religious Participation
Abstract
For more than a decade, sociologists of religion have been debating the answer to a basic question: What is the relationship between religious pluralism and religious vitality? The old wisdom was that the relationship was negative, that pluralism undermines vitality. This view has been challenged by advocates of a supply-side model of religious vitality. They argue that the relationship is positive—that pluralism increases vitality—and this empirical claim has become foundational to the larger project of applying economic theory to religion. We review the relevant evidence and reach a straightforward conclusion: The empirical evidence does not support the claim that religious pluralism is positively associated with religious participation in any general sense. We discuss this conclusion's theoretical implications, and we identify potentially productive directions for future research on religious pluralism, church-state relations, and religious competition. It appears that North Americans are religious in spite of, not because of, religious pluralism. ( Olson 1998a :761). [R]eligious practice is strongly and positively associated with pluralism. ( Finke & Stark 1998 :762)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The religious market theory has been extended to the analysis of secular and social involvement of religious believers in activities such as giving and volunteering.
“While in most studies the focus has been placed on the market determinants of religious commitment, with the overarching purpose of providing theoretical and empirical refutations of secularization theory (Chaves and Gorski 2001; Stark and Bainbridge 1985; Stark and Finke 2000), the religious market theory has also been extended to the analysis of the secular and social involvement of religious”
From Catholicism and Its Civic Engagement (2014) · cites this paper as Chaves and Gorski 2001
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 62 · Cited by 429
- Authors
- Chaves, M., & Gorski, P. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Sociology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2001-08
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 261-281
- ISSN
- 0360-0572 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2115
- OpenAlex
- W2130316909
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 13.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
- Social Sciences › Law › Religious Freedom and Discrimination
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Keywords
- religious pluralism, religious participation, religious vitality, supply-side model, church-state relations, religious competition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review