Homicide and the World Religions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Dissertations UMSL Graduate Works 12-20-2017 Homicide and the World Religions Allen Shamow [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation Part of the Criminology Commons, Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, Sociology of Culture Commons, and the Sociology of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Shamow, Allen, "Homicide and the World Religions" (2017). Dissertations. 744. https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/744 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the UMSL Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Homicide and the World Religions Allen Shamow M.S.W., Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, 2008 B.A. Psychology, Kalamazoo College, 2006 A Dissertation Submitted to The Graduate School at the University of Missouri-St. Louis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Criminology and Criminal Justice May 2018 Advisory Committee Richard Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chairperson Janet Lauritsen, Ph.D. Michael Campbell, Ph.D. Susanne Karstedt, Ph.D. Copyright, Allen Shamow, 2018 1 ABSTRACT Cross-national studies seeking to explain the variation in rates of homicide have examined a multitude of factors including religion, but fewer studies have examined how religion may influence homicide through a society’s institutional structure. Social institutions include entities such as the economy, the family, the political structure, and educational system; and these institutions serve as guides for human action and behavior. Through its emphasis on values, religion may influence the interests and legitimize the functioning within societal institutions. In the present study, I examine how the major world religions of Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism may be associated with homicide through various cultural and institutional mechanisms. These mechanisms include individualism, secularization, religious pluralism, economic dominance, and social welfare. Higher levels of individualism may contribute to higher rates of homicide by reducing societal bonds and spurring secularization which results in the attenuated ability of religion to promote pro- social behavior. Higher rates of homicide may also occur as the competing value structures associated with religious pluralism legitimize a differentiated institutional structure whereby economic conditions dominate and weaken the socialization capacities of non-economic institutions. Non-economic institutions may be strengthened through an increase in social welfare which may also curb the deleterious effects of the individualism emanating from religion. While all of the major world religions are assessed in terms of their relationship with these mechanisms, particular attention is given to Protestantism due to its individualistic focus and pluralistic religious landscape. A measure of atheism is included in the present study along with a global measure of religious pluralism to assess whether it is the major world religions or some other entity related to religion that may be linked to homicide. Results from this study suggest that neither the major world religions nor atheism or religious pluralism is significantly associated with cross-national rates of homicide directly or through any of the proposed mechanisms. These findings suggest that future studies attempting to explain the variation in cross-national homicide rates should consider alternative institutional mechanisms as well as the growth of secularization across societies. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Chapter 1: Crime, Religion, and Social Institutions……………………….pg.5 II. Chapter 2: The Role of Religion in Social Life…………………………...pg.10 a. An Individualistic Outlook…………………………………………...pg.11 b. A Secularized Society……………………….......................................pg.18 c. A Pluralistic World…………………………………………………...pg.22 d. An Economy Unleashed……………………………………………...pg.26 e. Conceptual Review…………………………………………………...pg.35 f. Summary……………………………………………………………...pg.38 g. Research Questions…………………………………………………...pg.48 III. Chapter 3: Research Methodology……………………………………….pg.51 a. Dependent Variable…………………………………………………..pg.52 b. World Religions………………………………………………………pg.52 c. Individualism…………………………………………………............pg.53 d. Secularization………………………………………………………....pg.56 e. Religious Pluralism…………………………………………………...pg.57 f. Economic Dominance………………………………………………...pg.59 g. Social Welfare………………………………………………………...pg.60 h. Controls……………………………………………………………….pg.60 i. Methods of Analysis………………………………………………….pg.61 j. Model Specification…………………………………………………..pg.64 IV. Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………...pg.65 a. Multivariate Analyses………………………………………………...pg.75 V. Chapter 5: Discussion………………………………………………….....pg.93 VI. References……………………………………………………………….pg.107 VII. Appendices a. Appendix A, Sample of Nations (N=86)……………………...pgs.122-123 b. Appendix B, World Value Survey Items…...............................pgs.124-125 c. Appendix C, Measurement Parameter Estimates for Secularization......................................................................................pg.126 d. Appendix D, Bivariate Scatter Plots…………………………..pgs.127-134 e. Appendix E, Generalized Structural Equation Models for Homicide: Conditional Effects w/ Religious Intensity Measures…………pgs.135-144 f. Appendix F, Added Variable Plots with Major World Religions…...pg.145 g. Appendix G, Leverage versus Squared Residual Plot………………pg.146 h. Appendix H, Structural and Generalized Structural Equation Models of Homicide without El Salvador………………………………...pgs.147-158 i. Appendix I, Structural and Generalized Structural Equation Models of Homicide without South Africa……………………………….pgs.159-169 j. Appendix J, Structural and Generalized Structural Equation Models of Homicide without Columbia…………………………………..pgs.170-181 k. Appendix K, Structural and Generalized Structural Equation Models of Homicide without Zambia…………………………………….pgs.182-192 l. Appendix L, Structural and Generalized Structural Equation Models of Homicide without Israel……………………………………….pgs.193-204 3 m. Appendix M, Structural and Generalized Structural Equation Models of Homicide without Thailand…………………………………...pgs.205-216 n. Appendix N, Structural and Generalized Structural Equation Models of Homicide without Norway…………………………………….pgs.217-227 o. Appendix O, Structural and Generalized Structural Equation Models of Homicide without El Salvador, South Africa, Columbia, Zambia, Israel, Thailand, & Norway…………………………………………..pgs.228-239 VIII. Tables & Figures a. Figure 1. Theoretical Model………………………………………….pg.40 b. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics………………………………………...pg.66 c. Table 2. Correlation Matrix……………………………………...pgs.69-70 d. Table 3. Maximum Likelihood Standardized Parameter Estimates & Generalized Structural Equation Models of the Influence of Protestantism on Homicide Rates: Direct, Indirect, & Conditioning Effects…..pgs.76-77 e. Figure 2. Structural Equation Model of the Relationship between Protestantism and Homicide Rates: Direct & Indirect Effects w/ Individualism…………………………………………………………pg.79 f. Figure 3. Structural Equation Model of the Relationship between Protestantism and Homicide Rates: Direct & Indirect Effects w/ Secularization…………………………………………………………pg.80 g. Table 4. Maximum Likelihood Standardized Parameter Estimates & Generalized Structural Equation Models of the Influence of Catholicism on Homicide Rates: Direct, Indirect, & Conditioning Effects…..pgs.82-83 h. Table 5. Maximum Likelihood Standardized Parameter Estimates & Generalized Structural Equation Models of the Influence of Islam on Homicide Rates: Direct, Indirect, & Conditioning Effects……..pgs.86-87 4 CHAPTER 1. CRIME, RELIGION, AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS Researchers have highlighted numerous factors which may explain the differences in rates of homicide cross-nationally. Nivette (2011) suggests that some of the leading explanations for the variation in cross-national rates of homicide include a country’s distribution of wealth, its level of ethnic diversity, human development, and whether a nation is Latin in origin. Lower homicide rates tend to be found in countries having more economic growth, stronger democracies, and higher income levels (LaFree, 2005; Neumayer, 2003), while increases in homicide have been linked to higher levels of income inequality (Jacobs & Richardson, 2008; Lee & Bankston, 1999; Messner, 1980). Economic discrimination as an ascribed form of inequality has also been linked to higher rates of homicide at the national level (Karstedt, 2003; Messner, 1989). Economic discrimination refers to the denial of economic resources based on an individual’s racial, ethnic, or religious characteristics (Messner, 1989). Aside from inequality, variation in cross-national rates of homicide has been attributed to poverty measured through infant mortality rates (Messner, Raffalovich, & Sutton, 2010; Pridemore, 2008; 2011). One factor that may inhibit homicide within a nation is social welfare. Messner (2003) notes that several studies have found a link between social welfare policies and lower homicide rates at the cross-national level. In particular, social support measured through governmental expenditures on health and education has been shown to be associated with a reduction in homicide (Pratt & Godsey, 2002; 2003).