The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations
Abstract
The proportion of Americans who reported no religious preference doubled from 7 percent to 14 percent in the 1990s. This dramatic change may have resulted from demographic shifts, increasing religious skepticism, or the mix of politics and religion that characterized the 1990s. One demographic factor is the succession of generations; the percentage of adults who had been raised with no religion increased from 2 percent to 6 percent. Delayed marriage and parenthood also contributed to the increase. Religious skepticism proved to be an unlikely explanation: Most people with no preference hold conventional religious beliefs, despite their alienation from organized religion. In fact, these “unchurched believers” made up most of the increase in the “no religion” preferences. Politics, too, was a significant factor. The increase in “no religion “ responses was confined to political moderates and liberals; the religious preferences of political conservatives did not change. This political part of the increase in “nones” can be viewed as a symbolic statement against the Religious Right.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,789
Putnam, R. (2000) · doi:10.1145/358916.361990 · Cited by 17,114
Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables.
MTW, & Long, J. S. (1997) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2965458 · Cited by 6,898
Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657288 · Cited by 4,524
Public Religions in the Modern World
Casanova, J. (1994) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226190204.001.0001 · Cited by 3,407
Cleveland, W. S. (1993) · Cited by 1,698
Have American's Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?
DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/230995 · Cited by 1,250
Bowling Alone: The Collapse And Revival Of American Community
Putnam, & Robert, R. (2000) · Cited by 1,133
Religion and Society in Tension.
Yinger, J. M., Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R. (1966) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2090948 · Cited by 1,029
American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword.
Manza, J., & Lipset, S. M. (1996) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2077274 · Cited by 1,000
Cited by
Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791017 · Cited by 1,795
Atheists as “other”: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society
Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100203 · Cited by 914
Iyer, S. (2016) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.54.2.395 · Cited by 382
Islam Moves West: Religious Change in the First and Second Generations
Voas, D., & Fleischmann, F. (2012) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145455 · Cited by 331
Zuckerman, P. (2009) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x · Cited by 239
Metadata
- Authors
- Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 165-190
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2166128272
- Cited by
- 836
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 123.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/000312240206700201
- The paper
- Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S. (2002). Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240206700201
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.