Sources of Social Support: Examining Congregational Involvement, Private Devotional Activities, and Congregational Context

JOURNAL for theSCIENTIFIC STUDY of RELIGION

Sources of Social Support: ExaminingCongregational Involvement, Private DevotionalActivities, and Congregational Context

JENNIFER M. MCCLUREDepartment of SociologyPennsylvania State University

Previous studies examining the relationship between religion and providing social support have claimed thatreligious involvement and social networks explain the higher levels of social support among religious Americans.By limiting its focus to attenders of religious congregations, this study seeks to understand if private devotionalactivities and congregational context also matter for predicting the provision of social support in a highly religioussample. Utilizing a sample of attenders and their congregations from the 2008/2009 U.S. Congregational LifeSurvey, a national survey representative of American congregations, this study uses multilevel models to examinethe relationships that congregational involvement, private devotional activities, and congregational context havewith providing social support. Results suggest that, among attenders of religious congregations, congregationalinvolvement and private devotional activities matter for predicting the provision of social support, but two aspectsof congregational context—size and theology—do not.

Keywords: social support, congregational involvement, private devotional activities, congregational context.

INTRODUCTION

Scholars have given extensive attention to the relationship between health outcomes andsocial support (Cohen and Wills 1985; House 1987; Kessler, Price, and Wortman 1985; Putnam2000; Thoits 2011; Uchino 2004), yet relatively little attention has been given to understandingwhy people provide social support (House, Umberson, and Landis 1988; Shumaker and Brownell1984). Social support is “an exchange of resources between at least two individuals perceivedby the provider or the recipient to be intended to enhance the wellbeing of the recipient” (Shu-maker and Brownell 1984:13) and tends to encompass informal types of helping, like caring forsomeone who is sick and providing transportation, advice, and financial help (Ellison and George1994:52; Wilson and Musick 1997:702). Much of the sociological research on how religion in-fluences social support and prosocial behavior focuses on religious social networks. People aremore likely to receive social support from close friends who share their faith (Merino 2012).Embeddedness in religious social networks is also predictive of volunteering, giving, and civicengagement (Merino 2013; Putnam and Campbell 2010; Wilson 2000:224). Putnam and Camp-bell (2010) underscore the importance of relationships formed in religious contexts; comparedwith demographic characteristics, ideology, general social networks, and religiosity, religious

Note: The data for this project are publicly available through the Association of Religion Data Archive.

Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank Deborah Bruce, Cynthia Woolever, and the Presbyterian Church(U.S.A.) Research Services staff for providing the data for this project. The author would also like to thank Roger Finke,David Johnson, and Jenny Trinitapoli for their feedback throughout the course of this project, as well as three anonymousreviewers and Laura Olson for their comments and suggestions.

Correspondence should be addressed to Jennifer McClure, Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, 211Oswald Tower, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2013) 52(4):698–712C© 2013 The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion

SOURCES OF SOCIAL SUPPORT 699

social networks are the strongest predictor of a variety of forms of prosocial behavior. Not onlyare religious social networks the strongest predictor of prosocial behavior, but they also mediate,or explain, the relationship between religiosity and prosocial behavior. They conclude: “the realimpact of religiosity on niceness or good neighborliness, it seems, comes through chatting withfriends after service or joining a Bible study group, not from listening to the sermon or ferventlybelieving in God” (Putnam and Campbell 2010:472).

These results suggest that, in the American public, social relationships are the main mecha-nism through which religion influences the provision of social support and other forms of prosocialbehavior. This article seeks to further examine the relationship between religiosity and providingsocial support by narrowing its focus to attenders of religious congregations. I hypothesize that,in a highly religious sample, not only congregational involvement but also private devotionalactivities and congregational context matter for predicting the provision of social support.

CONGREGATIONAL INVOLVEMENT

Connections between religion and social relationships are well established in the sociologicalliterature. Durkheim ([1912] 2001) emphasized the connection between religion and social con-nectedness, suggesting that religious people actually wrongfully attribute the social integrationthey experienced to be the presence of a divine being.

In various demonstrations of sympathy, esteem, and affection from his peers, the man who does his [ritual] dutyfinds a sustaining comfort which he usually takes for granted . . . . Because he is in moral harmony with hiscontemporaries, he has more confidence, courage, and audacity—like the believer who thinks he feels the eyes ofhis god turned benevolently toward him. (Durkheim [1912] 2001:159)

While some aspects of Durkheim’s theory on religion have been challenged, scholars agreethat religion can strongly bind people together and help people to become more involved inthe community (Ammerman 1997; Beyerlein and Hipp 2006; Driskell, Lyon, and Embry 2008;Putnam 2000; Putnam and Campbell 2010).

Relationships formed within a religious congregation have a strong moral dimension andmay, for that reason, be important predictors of providing social support. As Putnam and Campbellargue:

Religiously based ties are morally freighted in a way that most secular ties are not, so that pleas for good works(giving, volunteering, joining a reform movement, serving as a leader in some civic organization, and so forth)seem more appropriate and weightier than comparable requests from a co-worker or someone you know from thegym. (2010:477)

This moral weight is effective not only because religious teachings address what people oughtto do but also because these teachings frame what people ought to do as a divine command orcalling (Ammerman 1997:368). Because of the moral weight in congregational networks, beingsocially embedded in one can provide both moral and social pressure to become involved in thecommunity and to help others (Beyerlein and Hipp 2006; Putnam and Campbell 2010). Religiousinvolvement also influences how likely one is to be recruited to help others and to volunteer.People who attend religious services more frequently are more likely to be asked to volunteerand to volunteer when asked to do so (Paik and Navarre-Jackson 2011). People are more likelyto recruit friends from their own congregations to volunteer and are more effective in recruitingthese friends to help in the community (Merino 2013).

Religious social involvement has two conceptual categories: association and community.Association pertains to participation in the organizational life of a religious congregation, likeattending religious services, while community concerns how socially embedded one is in a

700 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

religious congregation or the extent to which one draws his or her friends from his or her religiouscongregation (Lenski 1961:23). Research supports the influence of both religious associationand community on prosocial behaviors. People who attend worship services more frequently aremore likely to be asked to volunteer, more likely to volunteer, and more likely to help friends andneighbors (Paik and Navarre-Jackson 2011; Wilson and Musick 1997). Involvement in religioussocial networks also mediates, or explains, the relationship between religiosity and a variety offorms of prosocial behavior (Putnam and Campbell 2010:472). Past studies of American adultssuggest that both attendance and embeddedness in religious social networks relate with helpingothers.

Limiting its focus to religious attenders, this study tests two hypotheses concerning in-volvement in religious congregations, one concerning associational involvement and the otherconcerning communal involvement. These hypotheses serve as a baseline against which to testwhether private devotional activities or congregational context matter for predicting whetherattenders of religious congregations provide social support. The hypotheses concerning socialinvolvement in religion are:

H1: More frequent worship service attendance is associated with being more likely to providesocial support.

H2: Being more socially embedded in a congregation is associated with being more likely toprovide social support.

PRIVATE DEVOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

Scholars have not extensively examined how engaging in private devotional activities in-fluences providing social support, yet some research suggests that it might matter. In Gorsuchand McPherson’s (1989) revised scales for intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, the importanceof spending “time in private thought and prayer” is a component of intrinsic religiosity. It ishighly correlated with other items that measure the extent to which one has internalized his orher religion, including basing one’s lifestyle on religion and trying to live in accordance withone’s religious beliefs (Gorsuch and McPherson 1989:353). While private prayer, meditation, andscripture reading are usually oriented toward a divine being, they can also be oriented inwardlyand outwardly. Inward prayer involves reflection and self-examination, whereas outward prayerincludes interceding for and suffering with others (Ladd and Spilka 2006). Engaging in outwardprayer may help people to be more attuned to how they can help others. Outward focused privatedevotional activities, even though they are intrinsically based, may have prosocial effects.

The studies that examine the influence of prayer on providing social support and on beinginvolved in other voluntary activities have contradictory findings. Wilson and Musick indicate thatprayer is unrelated to volunteering and slightly negatively related to helping others. These rela-tionships, however, may be artifacts of the fact that they measured prayer by asking if respondentssought spiritual support and comfort in times of difficulty (1997:703–04), which refers more toupward and inward orientations of prayer (Ladd and Spilka 2006). Intrinsic religiosity, however,may be the connection between private religious activities and prosocial behavior. People whoare intrinsic religious are more likely to volunteer through charities or other service organizations(Hansen, Vandenberg, and Patterson 1995:103). People who have strong religious identities andwho believe that helping is an important part of their religion are more likely to volunteer andto give charitably (Einolf 2011:447). As a component of intrinsic religiosity, private devotionalactivities, especially those with an outward orientation, may encourage attenders to provide socialsupport.

Based on this literature, this study hypothesizes that private devotional activities also relatewith providing social support for attenders of religious congregations:


H3: Attenders who participate in private devotional activities more frequently are more likelyto provide social support.

CONGREGATIONAL CONTEXT

Congregations are perhaps the most important organizational structure in American religion(Chaves et al. 1999:458). As the primary locus of religion for many attenders, congregations havea profound opportunity to shape members socially, theologically, and spiritually. Two ways inwhich congregations can influence attenders are congregational size and theology. The size of thecongregation influences many aspects of congregational life, including attenders’ participationin activities, social embeddedness within the congregation, and even the support anticipated bymembers (Ellison et al. 2009; Scheitle and Adamczyk 2009; Wilken 1971). Two findings are ofparticular importance for understanding how size of congregation may influence the provision ofsocial support. Attenders of large congregations anticipate that they would receive less supportfrom other members than attenders of smaller congregations (Ellison et al. 2009), and attenders oflarger congregations are less socially embedded into their congregations (Scheitle and Adamczyk2009:23–24). If members of large congregations experience a less supportive congregationalenvironment and less social embeddedness, they may be less likely to provide social supportbecause they have less social reserves within their congregation from which they can provide it.

Congregational theology may also influence the provision of social support. More conserva-tive, exclusive, or strict congregations encourage attenders to have higher levels of commitment,which reduces the membership that is not actively contributing to the congregation and gener-ates more financial, social, and spiritual resources (Stark and Finke 2000). Attenders of moretheologically conservative congregations also experience more social embeddedness in their con-gregations (Scheitle and Adamczyk 2009). Because commitment and social embeddedness arehigher in theologically conservative congregations, they may have stronger norms concerningvarious helping activities, including social support, framing them not as a prosocial behavior orpersonal favor but as a divine call. Because of the higher levels of commitment and strongersocial embeddedness in theologically conservative congregations, attenders of more conservativecongregations may be more likely to provide social support.

The hypotheses concerning congregational context are:

H4: Attenders of larger congregations are less likely to provide social support.H5: Attenders of more theologically conservative congregations are more likely to provide

social support.

METHODS

Data and Sample

The data used for this analysis are from the 2008/2009 U.S. Congregational Life Survey(USCLS) (Research Services, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 2008/2009). This dataset is uniquelysuited to examine this study’s hypotheses because it contains data on both congregations andtheir attenders. These data were collected by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Research Servicesand funded by the Lilly Endowment, Inc., the Louisville Institute, and the Presbyterian Church(U.S.A.). The sampling frame for the data collection was developed by Harris Interactive throughhypernetwork sampling, includes the congregations that participated in the 2001 USCLS, and isgeneralizable to all U.S. congregations. Of the congregations that participated in the 2001 USCLSand that could be verified as existing congregations, 26.3 percent participated in the 2008/2009USCLS. Of the new sample of congregations developed for the 2008/2009 USCLS, 11.1 percent


participated. Data were collected through self-administered surveys. For each congregation, aclergy member or lay leader completed a congregational profile. During services over a week-end of each congregation’s choice, attenders were invited to complete questionnaires about theirinvolvement in and attitudes about the congregation (Woolever and Bruce 2010). Because con-gregations only collected data over one weekend, more frequent attenders were more likely toparticipate in this survey than less frequent attenders.

Two selection filters were used to create the sample for this study. First, the sample waslimited to attenders of religious congregations age 18 or older. Second, because the dependentvariables ask if respondents provided different forms of social support in the last year, visitorsand respondents who had attended their congregation for less than a year were excluded fromthe sample. This selection filter was used to increase the likelihood that the congregation thatinfluenced the attender was the congregation he or she was currently attending. Before theselection filters, the data contained 63,371 attenders from 250 congregations. After the selectionfilter, the sample contained 53,473 attenders from 250 congregations. The selection filters onlyintroduced one major bias into the sample (see the Appendix). The sample became older sincerespondents aged 17 and under were excluded.

Due to using casewise deletion to address missing data, the analytical sample shrank furtherto 37,625 attenders from 228 congregations (see the Appendix). The loss of cases was primarilydue to two variables: income and congregation size. About 12 percent of attenders in the sampledid not report their income. This problem is common in survey research because of sensitivity overdisclosing one’s income (Penn 2007). Also, about 9 percent of the congregations in the sampledid not report their size. The analytical sample only differs from the full sample significantly inthree ways. Attenders in the analytical sample are, on average, younger than the attenders in thefull sample. For congregations, the percentage of Catholic congregations fell from 20 percent to17 percent, and the percentage of mainline Protestant congregations increased from 56 percentto 59 percent.

Compared to nationally representative surveys, the analytic sample is biased toward reli-giously active persons. In the 2008 General Social Survey (National Opinion Research Center2008), about a quarter of respondents attended religious services once a week or more, whilealmost 80 percent of the analytical sample did so. Turning to private devotional activities, in thenationally representative 2007 Baylor Religion Survey, 12.8 percent of respondents read sacredtexts outside of religious services at least weekly. In the analytic sample, over 70 percent spenttime in private devotional activities at least once a week. The analytical sample for this study ismore religiously active, both socially and privately, than the general American public.

Dependent Variables

There are three measures for social support in the USCLS. Attenders were asked to indicatewhether they did each of the following for a nonfamily member in the last year: loan money;care for someone who was very sick; help someone find a job. These variables were codeddichotomously: 0 for respondents who did not do so; 1 for respondents who did.

Independent Variables

Measures for involvement in a congregation include frequency of attendance at worshipservices and social embeddedness in one’s congregation. Frequency of attendance at worshipservices is measured through the following question: “How often do you go to worship ser-vices at this congregation?” Response categories are: (1) once a month or less; (2) two tothree times a month; (3) once a week; (4) more than once a week. Social embeddedness in acongregation is measured through the following question: “Do you have any close friends inthis congregation?” Response categories are: (1) no, I have little contact with others from this


congregation outside of activities here; (2) no, I have some friends in this congregation, but myclosest friends are not involved here; (3) yes, I have some close friends here as well as other closefriends who are not part of this congregation; (4) yes, most of my closest friends are part of thiscongregation.

Frequency of private devotional activities is measured through the following question: “Howoften do you spend time in private devotional activities (such as prayer, meditation, reading theBible alone)?” Response categories are: (1) never; (2) hardly ever; (3) occasionally; (4) once aweek; (5) a few times a week; (6) every day.

Congregational context variables include size and theological conservatism. Congregationsize is measured using average weekly attendance for 2008. I transformed this measure bya natural log because of its right skew. This transformation also reflects that an increase incongregational size from 50 to 100 should have more of an impact on providing social supportthan an increase in size from 1,000 to 1,050 (Scheitle and Adamczyk 2009:22). Theologicalconservatism is measured by aggregating to the congregational level attenders’ responses tothe following question: “Which of the following terms best describes your current stand ontheological issues?” The response categories were: (1) very liberal; (2) liberal; (3) right in themiddle; (4) conservative; (5) very conservative. The reliability of this aggregate measure is .97(O’Brien 1990).1

Control Variables

A variety of demographic characteristics and the religious tradition of one’s congregationcovary with providing social support and key independent variables. Older people are less likelyto provide social support (Wilson and Musick 1997) and are also more socially embedded incongregations (Scheitle and Adamczyk 2009). Women are more likely to provide social sup-port and are more religious than men (Wilson and Musick 1997). Higher levels of educationand income are associated with providing more social support, with less religiosity, and withless social embeddedness in religious congregations (Scheitle and Adamczyk 2009; Wilsonand Musick 1997). African Americans are more religious and receive and provide more so-cial support than Caucasians (Krause 2002; Wilson and Musick 1997). Mainline Protestantsand Roman Catholics experience less social embeddedness in their congregations than con-servative Protestants do (Scheitle and Adamczyk 2009). Because of these relationships withdependent and independent variables, the hypotheses stated above are tested controlling for re-spondents’ age, sex, educational attainment, income, and race and for congregational religioustradition.

Control variables are measured in the following ways. Age is measured in years. Sex isa dichotomous variable: (0) male; (1) female. Educational attainment is measured with thefollowing scale: (1) less than high school diploma; (2) high school diploma; (3) trade schoolor associate’s degree; (4) bachelor’s degree; (5) graduate degree. Pretax income is measuredthrough the following scale: (1) less than $10,000; (2) $10,000–$24,999; (3) $25,000–$49,999;(4) $50,000–$74,999; (5) $75,000–$99,999; (6) $100,000–$124,999; (7) $125,000–$149,000; (8)$150,000 or more. Race is measured through dummy variables for the following racial categories:African American, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic, and other race. The other race category includesrespondents who are multiracial. Congregational religious tradition was coded according tothe RELTRAD scheme (Steensland et al. 2000): evangelical Protestants; mainline Protestants;

1This high reliability coefficient (.97) is partially due both to the large number of cases in the analysis (the average numberof cases per congregation is 135). Congregation alone accounts for 21 percent of the variance in attenders’ theology, andthe intraclass correlation is .208. These statistics suggest that the average theology of a congregation is highly reliable,even though theological heterogeneity exists within congregations.


black Protestants;2 Roman Catholic; other religious traditions (Orthodox, Unitarian Universalist,Jewish, and Latter-Day Saint congregations).

Analytic Strategy

The hypotheses are tested using multilevel logistic regressions with random intercepts.Multilevel methods are uniquely suited to this type of analysis because they can incorporateboth individual-level and group-level predictors in analyses and can also adjust for clustering bycongregation. Random intercept models assume that attender-level predictors operate the sameway in the different congregations and allow the intercept, or base level of providing socialsupport, to vary across congregations. Congregation-level variables are then used to predict thisintercept (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Two model fit statistics, the AIC and BIC, are alsoutilized to examine whether private devotional activities and congregational context, when addedto a model containing congregational involvement, contribute to predicting the provision of socialsupport.

RESULTS

Univariate and Bivariate Results

Table 1 presents the univariate descriptive statistics for the analytical sample. Over a quarter(27 percent) of the respondents provided a loan, 21 percent cared for a nonfamily member whowas very ill, and 23 percent helped someone to find a job. Respondents, on average, were quiteinvolved in their congregations. They attended worship services about once a week and had someclose friends in their congregations. The average attender was also active in private devotionalactivities, engaging in them a few times a week. The median congregation had an average weeklyattendance of about 200, and the average congregation was moderately conservative.

Table 2 presents the bivariate relationships between the three types of social support andcongregational involvement, private devotional activities, and congregational context. These oddsratios were calculated in multilevel logistic regressions in which each form of social supportwas regressed on only one independent variable at a time. The bivariate results concerning therelationship between congregational involvement and providing social support were inconsistent.Respondents who attended worship services more frequently were less likely to give a loan (OR= .882; p < .001), more likely to care for the sick (OR = 1.161; p < .001), and less likely to helpsomeone find a job (OR = .844; p < .001). Attenders who were more socially embedded in theircongregations were no more or less likely to give a loan (OR = 1.019; p > .10), more likely tocare for someone who is sick (OR = 1.266; p < .001), and slightly more likely to help someoneto find a job (OR = 1.041; p < .01). There are more consistent results for private devotionalactivities. Attenders who engaged in private devotional activities more frequently were slightlymore likely to give a loan (OR = 1.035; p < .001), more likely to care for the sick (OR = 1.187;p < .001), and only marginally more likely to help someone find a job (OR = 1.015; p < .10).Finally, congregational size and theology do not consistently relate with providing social support.Attenders of larger congregations are more likely to give a loan (OR = 1.105; p < .01), no moreor less likely to care for the sick (OR = .977; p > .10), and more likely to help someone finda job (OR = 1.171; p < .001). Attenders of more theologically conservative congregations are

2The black Protestant category includes two types of congregations: congregations in historically African-Americandenominations, such as the National Baptist Convention and the National Missionary Baptist Convention; mainlineand conservative Protestant and nondenominational congregations that have high percentages (75 percent or higher) ofAfrican-American attenders.


Table 1: Descriptive statistics

Mean Standard deviation Minimum MaximumAttender-level variables (N = 37,625)

Giving a loan .270 – 0 1Caring for the sick .214 – 0 1Help finding a job .232 – 0 1Attendance 2.857 .692 1 4Social embeddednesss 2.709 .823 1 4Private devotions 4.771 1.475 1 6Age 54.703 16.421 18 100Female .601 – 1 1Education 3.304 1.206 1 5Income 4.231 1.907 0 8Asian .032 – 0 1African American .056 – 0 1Caucasian .809 – 0 1Hispanic .076 – 0 1Other race .028 – 0 1

Congregation-level variables (N = 228)Congregation size (LN) 5.376 1.111 2.708 9.210Theological conservatism 3.324 .565 1.432 4.625Catholic .167 – 0 1Evangelical Protestant .167 – 0 1Mainline Protestant .588 – 0 1Black Protestant .044 – 0 1Other denominations .035 – 0 1

Source: U.S. Congregational Life Survey, 2008/2009.

Table 2: Bivariate odds ratios for predicting the provision of social support

Giving a loan Caring for the sick Help finding a job

Congregational involvementAttendance .882*** 1.161*** .844***

Social embeddedness 1.019 1.266*** 1.041**

Private devotional activitiesPrivate devotions 1.035*** 1.187*** 1.015+

Congregational contextSize of congregation (LN) 1.105** .977 1.171***

Theological conservatism 1.149* .900* .924

Note: N = 37,625 for attenders and 228 for congregations.+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.


more likely to give a loan (OR = 1.149; p < .05), less likely to care for the sick (OR = .900; p <

.05), and no more or less likely to help someone find a job (OR = .924; p > .10). In the bivariateanalyses, only engaging in private devotions consistently relates with providing social support.

The correlations between the independent variable are also important to examine beforeproceeding to the multivariate analyses. Table 3 presents these correlations. On the congregationallevel, size of congregation and theological conservatism are uncorrelated (r = .086; p > .10).


Table 3: Correlations between independent variables

PrivateCongregational Congregational devotional

context involvement activities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Congregational context(1) Size ofcongregation (LN)

– .086

(2) Theologicalconservatism

–

Congregational involvement(3) Attendance – .222*** .209***

(4) Socialembeddedness

– .118***

Private devotional activities(5) Private devotions –

Note: N = 37,625 for attenders and 228 for congregations.+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.


On the attender level, the correlation between the two congregational involvement variables,attendance and social embeddedness, is moderate (r = .222; p < .001), suggesting that themeasures tap into a similar construct but are not identical aspects of congregational involvement.There are also moderate correlations between the measures for congregational involvement andprivate devotional activities that reflect an underlying dimension of general religiosity.

Multivariate Results

Table 4 presents the multivariate relationships between the independent variables and provid-ing social support, controlling for demographic factors and religious tradition. Multilevel logisticregressions were used to estimate the odds ratios. In examining congregational involvement, theinfluence of attendance still varies across the three types of social support, but the influence ofsocial embeddedness is consistent. Respondents who attended worship services more frequentlywere less likely to provide a loan (OR = .934; p < .001), slightly more likely to care for thesick (OR = 1.043; p < .05), and less likely to help someone find a job (OR = .918; p < .001).Attenders who were more socially embedded in their congregations, however, were more likelyto provide a loan (OR = 1.098; p < .001), to care for the sick (OR = 1.238; p < .001), and tohelp someone find a job (OR = 1.158; p < .001). These results provide mixed support for the hy-potheses concerning congregational involvement. The negative associations of frequent worshipservice attendance with providing a loan and with helping someone find a job were unanticipatedin the hypotheses. While one could be tempted to claim that the relationships between attendanceand providing these forms of social support are negative due to controlling for many other aspectsof religiosity, the bivariate results for regressing providing a loan and helping someone find a jobon attendance were also negative (see Table 2). For attenders of religious congregations, socialembeddedness is beneficial for providing social support, while worship service attendance is notnecessarily.

Private devotional activities have a positive influence on providing each of the three typesof social support. Attenders who engage in devotional activities are more likely to give a loan(OR = 1.093; p < .001), to care for the sick (OR = 1.152; p < .001), and to help someone


Table 4: Multivariate odds ratios for predicting the provision of social support

Giving a loan Caring for the sick Helping find a jobControl variables

Age 1.002 1.023*** 1.063***

Age2 .999*** .999*** .999***

Female .747*** 1.380*** .620***

Education .953*** 1.042** 1.119***

Income .997 .947*** 1.081***

Caucasian (reference) – – –Asian 1.238** 1.459*** 1.464***

African American 1.773*** 1.274** 1.562***

Hispanic 1.356*** 1.090 1.809***

Other race 1.561*** 1.393*** 1.590***

Catholic (reference) – – –Mainline Protestant .812** .985 .946Evangelical Protestant .983 1.064 .975Black Protestant 1.605** 1.268+ 1.420*

Other denomination 1.026 .847 1.342Congregational involvement

Attendance .934*** 1.043* .918***

Social embeddedness 1.098*** 1.238*** 1.158***

Private devotional activitiesPrivate devotions 1.093*** 1.152*** 1.088***

Congregational contextSize of congregation (LN) .992 .989 1.060*

Theological conservatism .972 .788*** .934Wald chi-square 1258.06*** 794.74*** 2269.02***

Note: N = 37,625 for attenders and 228 for congregations.+p <.10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Source: U.S Congregational Life Survey, 2008/2009.

find a job (OR = 1.088; p < .001). These results fully support the hypothesis concerning privatedevotional activities. These results also lend initial support that private devotions matter forpredicting whether attenders of religious congregations provide social support. Attenders whoengage in private devotions more frequently are more likely to provide social support.

For congregational context, neither of the hypotheses was fully supported. Controlling forcongregational religious tradition and theology, attenders of larger congregations were no moreor less likely to provide a loan (OR = .992; p > .10) or to care for the sick (OR = .989;p > .10), but they were slightly more likely to help someone find a job (OR = 1.060; p <

.05). Attenders of more theologically conservative congregations were no more or less likely toprovide a loan (OR = .972; p > .10) or to help someone find a job (OR = .934; p > .10), butthey were less likely to care for someone who was sick (OR = .788; p < .001), controlling forreligious tradition and congregation size. These results do not support the hypothesized negativerelationship between congregational size and providing social support; neither do they supportthe hypothesized positive relationship between theological conservatism and providing socialsupport.

Although private devotional activities and congregational context have significant relation-ships with at least some of the forms of providing social support, these relationships are not fullysufficient to demonstrate that congregational involvement is not the only aspect of religiositythat matters for predicting whether attenders provide social support. In order to examine the


importance of private devotional activities and congregational context, the Akaike’s informa-tion criteria (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to evaluate whethermodels containing private devotional activities and congregational context predict the provisionof social support better than models that only include congregational involvement (Long 1997).These analyses are not presented but are available upon request. For all three types of socialsupport, the variables measuring congregational involvement and private devotional activities arein the best fitting, most parsimonious models; congregational context variables, however, are onlyin the best-fitting model for caring for someone who is sick. Both congregational involvementand private devotional activities matter for predicting whether attenders provide social support;congregational context does not consistently improve model fit.

In summary, the findings support some but not all of the hypotheses. Concerning congre-gational involvement, only the hypothesis for social embeddedness was supported. Althoughattendance was hypothesized to associate positively with providing social support, more fre-quent attenders were only more likely to care for someone who was sick and were unexpectedlyless likely to provide a loan or to help someone find a job. Attenders who were more sociallyembedded in their congregations were more likely to provide each of the three forms of socialsupport. The hypothesis concerning private devotional activities was supported. Attenders whoengaged more frequently in private devotional activities were also more likely to provide each ofthe three forms of social support. For congregational context, neither hypothesis was supported.Attenders of large congregations were more likely to help someone find a job, and attenders ofmore theologically conservative congregations were less likely to care for someone who wassick. Congregational involvement and private devotional activities were included in the mostparsimonious, best-fitting models for predicting the provision of loans, caring for the sick, andhelping someone to find a job, but congregational context was only included in the best-fittingmodel for caring for the sick.

DISCUSSION

Where past literature had focused on the influence of religious involvement and religioussocial networks on prosocial behavior, this study hypothesized that, among attenders of religiouscongregations, private devotional activities and congregational context would also matter forpredicting the provision of social support. This study contributes two major findings to theliterature on religion and social support: (1) among attenders of religious congregations, engagingin private devotional activities contributes to predicting the provision of social support; (2)two aspects of congregational context, size and theological conservatism, do not conclusivelycontribute to predicting whether attenders of religious congregations provide social support. Thissection discusses the hypotheses and findings of this study.

Congregational involvement matters for understanding why attenders of congregations pro-vide social support. Only one of the congregational involvement hypotheses, however, wassupported. Respondents who attended worship services more frequently were actually less likelyto give a loan or to help someone find a job, while attenders who were more socially embeddedin their congregations were more likely to provide loans, care for the sick, and help someone finda job. These findings lend support to the current emphasis in the literature on how religious socialnetworks matter for understanding why religious persons engage in prosocial behavior (Merino2013; Putnam and Campbell 2010; Wilson 2000). These results suggest that relationships devel-oped in religious congregations matter more than worship service attendance for understandingwhy attenders of religious congregations provide social support. Faithful attendance of worshipservices does not necessarily mean that one has friends in his or her congregation or religiousgroup (Lenski 1961:23–24). People can attend religious services, even multiple times a week,yet leave right after the service, not develop friendships, and not participate in congregational


activities. Social embeddedness in one’s congregation may associate with providing social sup-port for many reasons. People who are more embedded in their congregations may have moreopportunities to learn about needs in the community, may have in their congregation a moralpeer group where expectations to help others and to provide social support are strong, and maybe recruited more often to help others (Ammerman 1997:367; Beyerlein and Hipp 2006; Merino2013; Putnam and Campbell 2010:477).

Attenders who engage in private devotional activities more frequently are more likely toprovide social support. The best-fitting models for giving a loan, caring for someone who is sick,and helping someone find a job also include devotional activities. Although studies that focus onthe general public emphasize the effects of religious social networks on providing social supportand on engaging in other forms of prosocial behavior (Merino 2013; Putnam and Campbell 2010;Wilson 2000), these findings indicate that, for attenders of religious congregations, both socialand private aspects of religion matter for understanding how religion associates with providingsocial support. Attenders who internalize religious teachings and practices and integrate theminto their daily lives through private devotional activities are more likely to provide social support(Ammerman 1997:368; Einolf 2011; Gorsuch and McPherson 1989:353; Hansen, Vandenberg,and Patterson 1995).

This study, to the author’s knowledge, is the first to examine how congregational contextrelates with providing social support. The findings reported above suggest that congregational sizeand theology do not consistently relate with providing social support and do not contribute to thebest-fitting model for two different types of social support. Attenders of larger congregations wereonly more likely to help someone find a job, and attenders of more conservative congregationswere less likely to care for someone who was sick.

Although attenders of larger congregations experience less social embeddedness (Scheitleand Adamczyk 2009) and expect to receive less support in their congregations (Ellison et al.2009), the hypothesized negative relationship between congregation size and providing socialsupport was not supported in the findings. Attenders of large congregations were more likely tohelp someone find a job. Although attenders of larger congregations cannot be socially integratedwith every other member of the congregation, they can participate in small groups that providefriendship and support. Attenders of large congregations who belong to a small group candevelop a stronger sense of belonging and commitment to the congregation as a whole andbecome more active in congregational activities (Putnam and Campbell 2010:63–68; Stark andFinke 2000:154–57). In addition to these close small group relationships, attenders of largecongregations can also develop extensive networks of acquaintances, from whom they can learnabout requests for social support or resources for providing social support (Granovetter 1973).Through these networks, attenders of large congregations may be more likely to learn aboutjob opportunities and to help others find jobs. Small group participation and networks of weakeracquaintances may explain why attenders of large congregations are more likely to help people findjobs.

Theological conservatism’s hypothesized positive relationship with providing social supportwas not supported in this study; in the multivariate analysis, attenders of theologically conservativecongregations were less likely to care for someone who was sick. This unexpected finding maybe the result of differing theological and social emphases between liberal and conservativecongregations. Liberal theology has a horizontal or outward focus on serving people and lovingone another, and liberal attenders have more ties to people outside of the congregation and aremore involved in the community. On the other hand, conservative theology has an inward andupward focus on God and doctrine. Conservative congregations emphasize evangelism morestrongly than community involvement, and their attenders are more socially embedded in theircongregations, have fewer ties to the wider community, and are more likely to volunteer withintheir congregations (Davidson 1975; Iannaccone 1994; Kanagy 1992; Scheitle and Adamczyk2009; Schwadel 2005; Stark and Finke 2000). Conservative congregations’ high levels of social


embeddedness and tendency to encourage volunteering within the congregation may explain whytheir attenders are not more likely to provide social support.

CONCLUSION

While this study examines congregational and attender-level predictors of providing socialsupport, many other questions about religion and social support remain. How do other aspectsof congregational context influence whether attenders provide social support? Do worship style,clergy characteristics, and types of activities offered matter? Does involvement in other aspects ofcongregational life such as small groups or community-focused activities also influence providingsocial support? Another area of needed research is examining the mechanisms by which congre-gational involvement and devotional activities relate with providing social support. This studydiscusses why congregational involvement and devotional activities may contribute to providingsocial support but does not empirically test these mechanisms. Analyzing social support and reli-gion in panel data may also help to clarify timeorder. For example, does social embeddedness in acongregation lead people to provide social support, does providing social support lead people todevelop more friendships in their congregations, or is the relationship reciprocal? Are people whoprovide social support more likely to attend more theologically liberal congregations, or does thecongregational theology shape attenders into providers of social support? These questions wouldfurther add to the sociological understanding of how religion and religious contexts influence theprovision of social support.

A major limitation of this study is that it does not control for general sociability. Indeed,many measures of sociability, including social network size, frequency of interaction with others,and perceived quality of relationships, are associated with religious involvement (Bradley 1995;Ellison and George 1994). Informal social interaction is also related with providing social support(Wilson and Musick 1997). However, because this study does not control for sociability, theassociations found between religion and social support could be spurious and due to sociability.Not being able to control for general sociability is a major weakness of this study.

This study contributes two important findings to the literature on religion and social support.First, for attenders of religious congregations, private devotional activities matter for predictingthe provision of social support. Second, congregational context (size and theology) does notconsistently contribute to predicting social support. While previous research emphasizes theinfluence of religious involvement and social networks on engaging in prosocial behaviors and onproviding social support, this research demonstrates that private devotional activities also matterfor predicting whether attenders provide social support.

REFERENCES

Ammerman, Nancy. 1997. Congregation and community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Beyerlein, Kraig and John R. Hipp. 2006. From pews to participation: The effect of congregation activity and context on

bridging civic engagement. Social Problems 53(1):97–117.Bradley, Don E. 1995. Religious involvement and social resources: Evidence from the data set “Americans’ Changing

Lives.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34(2):259–67.Chaves, Mark, Mary Ellen Konieczny, Kraig Beyerlein, and Emily Barman. 1999. The National Congregations Study:

Background, methods, and selected results. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(4):458–76.Cohen, Sheldon and Thomas Ashby Wills. 1985. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological

Bulletin 98(2):310–57.Davidson, James D. 1975. Glock’s model of religious commitment: Assessing some different approaches and results.

Review of Religious Research 16(2):83–93.Driskell, Robyn L., Larry Lyon, and Elizabeth Embry. 2008. Civic engagement and religious activities: Examining the

influence of religious tradition and participation. Sociological Spectrum 28(5):578–601.Durkheim, Emile. [1912] 2001. The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Oxford University Press.


Einolf, Christopher J. 2011. The link between religion and helping others: The role of values, ideas, and language.Sociology of Religion 72(4):435–55.

Ellison, Christopher G. and Linda K. George. 1994. Religious involvement, social ties, and social support in a southeasterncommunity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 33(1):46–61.

Ellison, Christopher G., Neal M. Krause, Bryan Shepherd, and Mark A. Chaves. 2009. Size, conflict, and opportunitiesfor interaction: Congregational effects on members’ anticipated support and negative interaction. Journal for theScientific Study of Religion 48(1):1–15.

Gorsuch, Richard L. and Susan E. McPherson. 1989. Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-Revised and single-item scales.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28(3):348–54.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360–80.Hansen, David E., Brian Vandenberg, and Miles L. Patterson. 1995. The effects of religious orientation on spontaneous

and nonspontaneous helping behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences 19(1):101–04.House, James S. 1987. Social support and social structure. Sociological Forum 2(1):135–46.House, James S., Debra Umberson, and Kark R. Landis. 1988. Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review

of Sociology 14(1):293–318.Iannaccone, Laurence R. 1994. Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology 99(5):1180–1211.Kanagy, Conrad L. 1992. Social action, evangelism, and ecumenism: The impact of community, theological, and church

structural variables. Review of Religious Research 34(1):34–50.Kessler, Ronald C., Richard H. Price, and Camille B. Wortman. 1985. Social factors in psychopathology: Stress, social

support, and coping processes. Annual Review of Psychology 36(1):531–72.Krause, Neal. 2002. Exploring race differences in a comprehensive battery of church-based social support measures.

Review of Religious Research 44(2):126–49.Ladd, Kevin L. and Bernard Spilka. 2006. Inward, outward, upward prayer: Scale reliability and validation. Journal for

the Scientific Study of Religion 45(2):233–51.Lenski, Gerhard. 1961. The religious factor: A sociological study of religion’s impact on politics, economics, and family

life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Merino, Stephen M. 2012. Social resources and influence in religious networks: Consequences for social support,

volunteering, and intergroup contact. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.______. 2013. Religious social networks and volunteering: Examining recruitment via close ties. Review of Religious

Research 55(3):509–27.O’Brien, Robert M. 1990. Estimating the reliability of aggregate-level variables based on individual-level characteristics.

Sociological Methods and Research 18(4):473–504.Paik, Anthony and Layana Navarre-Jackson. 2011. Social networks, recruitment, and volunteering: Are social capital

effects conditional on recruitment? Nonprofit and Volunteering Sector Quarterly 40(3):476–96.Penn, David A. 2007. Estimating missing values from the General Social Survey: An application of multiple imputation.

Social Science Quarterly 88(2):573–84.Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and

Schuster.Putnam, Robert D. and David E. Campbell. 2010. American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon

and Schuster.Raudenbush, Stephen W. and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Scheitle, Christopher P., and Amy Adamczyk. 2009. It takes two: The interplay of individual and group theology on

social embeddedness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(1):16–29.Schwadel, Philip. 2005. Individual, congregational, and denominational effects on church members’ civic participation.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44(2):159–71.Shumaker, Sally A. and Arlene Brownell. 1984. Toward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal of

Social Issues 40(4):11–36.Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke. 2000. Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry.

2000. The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces 79(1):291–318.Thoits, Peggy A. 2011. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and

Social Behavior 52(2):145–61.Uchino, Bert N. 2004. Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Wilken, Paul H. 1971. Size of organizations and member participation in church congregations. Administrative Science

Quarterly 16(2):173–79.Wilson, John. 2000. Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology 26(1):215–40.


Wilson, John and Marc A. Musick. 1997. Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Socio-logical Review 62(5):694–713.

Woolever, Cynthia and Deborah Bruce. 2010. A field guide to U.S. congregations: Who’s going where and why, 2ndedition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at thepublisher’s website:

Appendix. Comparing Samples.

Documents

Sources of Social Support: Examining Congregational Involvement, Private Devotional Activities, and Congregational Context