Do you believe in hell? - if so, it might be affecting your outlook on a wide range of issues, or so suggests a recent paper by Professor Treisman, Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of California. In the paper he shows that, at a regional level in Europe and parts of Asia, differences in the level of fear of the consequences of possible future events, such as nuclear war, swine flu, may be partly explicable by the strength of belief in hell held in that region. Commenting on his research Professor Treisman said: 

“Some previous research has found that people who are more afraid of nuclear war are less likely to save. Others have speculated that fearfulness might predispose people to support authoritarian government, but I have not seen any systematic evidence of this. I do find using survey data from Europe that, even controlling for the level of economic development, in countries where people are more fearful the average levels of happiness and life satisfaction are lower.” 

Professor Treisman’s study used existing data from the Eurobarometer series of opinion polls for Europe and the Asia Europe study, which performs a similar function across Asia and Europe to construct his index of fear, which is statistically reasonably robust. However these studies did not ask directly about belief in hell so their results, at a country level had to be associated with the World Values study which, in 2000 did ask about belief in heaven and hell. Because the World Values study used a different set of participants to the other studies, this means that the association between fear and belief in hell can not be explored at the level of individual subjects, and makes the overall findings of the research less certain.

Professor Treisman himself says “I should emphasize that it remains a conjecture that needs to be confirmed by further surveys. Why would belief in hell correlate with a greater predisposition to fearfulness? One possibility is that belief in divine retribution creates a general sense of anxiety that manifests itself with regard to particular dangers. Another is that belief in hell is associated with the belief that people are naturally evil, at least to some extent, and that therefore one should anticipate harm from others.” 

One feature of this research which is important to developing a fuller understanding of the implications would be to know what proportion of people who believe in hell in Europe are actively practicing Christians. If belief in hell is a partly culturally determined phenomenon, then for the purposes of interpreting the findings, it would be important to find out find out whether people who were actively practicing Christians and believed in hell were more or less fearful than those people who had a culturally determined belief in hell, but did not practice Christianity. 

Direct link to NBER's paper download site:  http://www.nber.org/papers/w16838

Download a draft of the paper from Professor  Treisman's site: here

Read the Wall Street Journal's blog on the paper: here 

Comment (0)

In the light of the recent controversy around the question about religious affiliation asked in the 2011 census and the attempts by certain interest groups to actively influence the outcome of the census it seemed pertinent to post an article at greater length than Research Brief permits of the process of selection and validation which National Statistics used to generate the questions asked in the census. 

The 2001 Census was the first time a religion question had been asked in England, Scotland and Wales to learn more about religious affiliation as a variable in its own right, collect data on religious minorities that cut across national and ethnic boundaries and capture data on two ethnic minority groups (Sikhs and Jews), ensuring that obligations under the Race Relations Act could be met.

A variety of quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used to test the questions recommended for inclusion in the 2011 Census. Qualitative question testing on religion has primarily been conducted by the data collection methodology (DCM) branch in ONS through a programme of cognitive testing, running since February 2005. Quantitative question testing has been conducted at various intervals since May 2006 using a variety of methodologies.

Measuring ‘religion’ is notoriously complex as there are a number of dimensions to the concept of religion. The key dimensions for survey and census questions about religion are affiliation, practice and belief. Based on the evidence of a lengthy programme of research and consultation, ONS believes that the most appropriate question for the 2011 Census is one that asks about religious affiliation rather than practice of belief. Several different question wordings have been tested, including:

• What is your religion?

• What is your religion or belief?

• What is your religion, even if not currently practising?

• Do you regard yourself as belonging to a religion?

• Which of these best describes you?

Testing found that the question ‘what is your religion?’ best meets the requirement of collecting good quality data on religious affiliation within the space constraints of the census questionnaire. The question will also provide comparability between the 2001 and 2011 Censuses. 

To find out more use this link:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011-census/2011-census-questionnaire-content/recommended-questions---religion.pdf 

Comment (0)

From Research Brief...

The probability of dying below the age of 75 is more than one-fifth higher in the north of England compared with the south. A study undertaken by researchers from the University of Manchester and recently published in the British Medical Journal said the north-south mortality difference was now at its widest for 40 years.

Red coloured regions have lower life expectancies than green coloured regions. Bracketed figures are respectively male and female life expectancies. Click to enlarge

In 1965, those living in the north were 16% more likely to die before the age of 75 than those in the south but this has risen to just over 20% by 2008. Men were more likely to be affected. 

Lead researcher, Professor Ian Buchan, said that health inequalities persisted even when people in the north and south were born into similar socio-economic groups. The reason for the divide is that people in the south, even if they have low incomes, have greater access to resources. He explained: ‘There is an overall concentration of resource in the south, the built environment is very different, there's more access to education, transport and other large scale resources. It’s not because those in the north are not looking after themselves... this is because of social, economic and health care resources controlled by government. For example, there are fewer GPs in deprived areas.’

The Department of Health said it was committed to reducing health inequalities by providing a ring-fenced public health budget, weighted towards the most deprived areas. However public health expert, Professor Alan Maryon-Davis said government cuts would worsen health inequalities: ‘Health care also depends very much on social care and voluntary support in the community. The huge cuts in local authority budgets in ... parts of the north mean that the divide is only likely to widen even further.’

To find out more use these links

The original research, published by the BMJ is here:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d508.full

and a selection of coverage from UK media is here: 

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12464427

ITV: http://www.itv.com/granada/is-it-grim-up-north36990/ 

Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/15/people-in-north-die-younger 

Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/northsouth-health-divide-kills-thousands-every-year-2216169.html

Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8325912/North-south-health-divide-at-widest-point-in-40-years.html

Comment (0)