Typology of Orthodox Russians: the problem of constructing a generalized religiosity indicator

Typology of Orthodox Russians: the problem of constructing a generalized religiosity indicator

Prutskova E.V.

Research fellow, Sociology of Religion Research Laboratory, Lecturer, Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Moscow, Russia evprutskova@gmail.com

Markin K.V.

Research fellow, Sociology of Religion Research Laboratory, Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Moscow, Russia markink20@gmail.com

ID of the Article: 6815

For citation:

Prutskova E.V., Markin K.V. Typology of Orthodox Russians: the problem of constructing a generalized religiosity indicator. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2017. No 8. P. 95-105


There are many approaches to religiosity measurement in sociology of religion, but most of the methodological literature is devoted only to the first step of operationalization of this concept — defining the aspects of religiosity and choosing the indicators for each of these aspects. At the same time almost no attention is paid to the inverse operation — the construction of the generalized measure of religiosity based on the operationalization developed. We consider three basic approaches to this problem and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. The first approach is using individual indicators. It allows minimizing the loss of information about the respondent’s answers, but it lacks generalizability and doesn’t allow for comparison of religiosity effects if religiosity is measured with different indicators. The second approach is construction of a generalized measure of religiosity on the basis of several indicators using summation, averaging, the principles of the strongest or the weakest response, and Factor Analysis. An advantage of this approach is that it produces a religiosity scale of at least ordinal measurement level. But one of the problems that emerge when we try to apply Factor Analysis is that it implies a measurement model with reflective (effect) indicators while the theory rather favors the formative measurement model. The principle of the strongest response overestimates the number of highly religious people while the opposite — the principle of weakest response — underestimates it. The third approach is the construction of a typology on the basis of several indicators with relatively homogeneous religiosity groups using Cluster Analysis or Latent Class Analysis. The advantage of this approach is that it doesn’t imply unidimensionality of religiosity phenomena and tries to find types that actually exist in the data. We come to the conclusion that in current situation, characterized by the plurality of social forms of religiosity, it would be most productive to use the latter approach. Further, we develop a typology of Russian Orthodox Christians based on the data of the Orthodox Monitor survey (2011) using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. The typology is based on four indicators: believing in God, frequency of Church attendance, frequency of attendance at religious services, and frequency of Confession and Communion.

Orthodox Christianity; inchurchedness; religiosity measurement; religiosity typology; V-Index; Centrality of Religiosity Scale; Orthodox Monitor


Babich N.S., Khomenko V.I. (2016) Conceptual bases for building one-dimensional religiosity scale. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 6: 65–71. (In Russ.)

Bollen K., Lennox R. (1991) Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 110. No. 2: 305–314.

Breskaya O.Yu. (2011) Studying religiousness: On the necessity of an integral approach. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 12: 77–87. (In Russ.)

Brown T.A. (2006) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press.

Chesnokova V.F. (2005) A Narrow Path: The Process of Churching of Russian Population at the end of the XX century. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt. (In Russ.)

Clayton R.R., Gladden J.W. (1974) The Five Dimensions of Religiosity: Toward Demythologizing a Sacred Artifact. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Vol. 13. No. 2: 135–143.

Deviatko I.F. (2003) Methods of sociological research. Moscow: Knizhnyy dom “Universitet”. (In Russ.)

Divisenko K.S. (2016) Strait gate in a right direction: problem of recognizing strong group of Orthodox believers. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 10: 128–138. (In Russ.)

Durkheim E.́ (1998) Elementarnye formy religioznoy zhizni. Totemicheskaya sistema v Avstralii. [The Elementary forms of the religious life. Totemic system in Australia]. In: Krasnikov A. N. (ed.) Mistika. Religiya. Nauka. Klassiki mirovogo religiovedeniya. Antologiya. [Mystic. Religion. The science. Classics of world religious studies. Anthology]. Moscow: Kanon+: 174–238. (In Russ.)

European Values Study. URL: http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/ (accessed 20.10.2016).

Faulkner J.E., de Jong G.F. (2011) Religiosity in 5-D: An empirical analysis. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 12: 69–77. (In Russ.)

Glock Ch.Y. (1962) On the Study of Religious Commitment. Religious Education. Vol. 57. Sup. 4: 98–110.

Hill P.C., Hood R.W. (1999) Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.

Huber S. (2009) Religion Monitor 2008: Structuring Principles, Operational Constructs, Interpretive Strategies. In: Rieger M. (ed) What the World Believes: Analyses and Commentary on the Religion Monitor 2008. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung: 17–51.

Huber S., Huber O.W. (2012) The Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS). Religions. Vol. 3. No. 3: 710–724.

Karpov V., Lisovskaya E., Barry D. (2012) Ethnodoxy: How Popular Ideologies Fuse Religious and Ethnic Identities. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Vol. 51. No. 4: 638–655.

Lebedev S.D., Sukhorukov V.V. (2013) A narrow path to wrong place? Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 1: 118–126. (In Russ.)

Lee L. (2015) Recognizing the Nonreligious: Reimagining the Secular. New York: Oxford University Press.

Luckmann T. (1967) The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Orthodox Monitor. URL: http://socrel.pstgu.ru/RU/orthodoxmonitor (accessed 29.02.2016).

Prutskova E.V. (2012) The concept of religiosity: Operationalization in empirical research. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, religion and Church in Russia and worldwide]. No. 2(30): 268–293. (In Russ.).

Prutskova E.V. (2013) Religiosity and its consequences in the sphere of norms and values. Sotsiologicheskij zhurnal [Sociological Journal]. No. 2: 72–88. (In Russ.)

Ryzhova S.V. (2016) Features of studying religious identity of Russians. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 10: 118–127. (In Russ.)

Siegers P. (2011) A Multiple Group Latent Class Analysis of Religious Orientations in Europe. In: Davidov E. Schmidt P. Billiet J. (eds) Cross-Cultural Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Routledge: 385–414.

Sinelina Yu. Yu. (2006) Izmerenie religioznosti naseleniya Rossii: pravoslavnye i musul’mane: suevernoe povedenie rossiyan. [Measurement of religiosity of Russian population: the Russian Orthodox and Muslims: superstitious behavior of Russians]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)

Sinelina Yu. Yu. (2009) Kontseptsii sekulyarizatsii v sotsiologicheskoy teorii. [Conceptions of secularization in sociological theory]. Moscow: ISPI RAN. (In Russ.)

Sinelina Yu. Yu. (2013) Dynamics of Russians’ religiousness and issues of its research methodology. Religious thinking and behavior of Russian Orthodox and Muslims. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 10: 104–115. (In Russ.)

Stark R., Glock Ch.Y. (1968) American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Troeltsch E. (1994) Church and sect. In: Garadzhi V.I., Rutkevich E.D (eds) Religion and society. Reader on sociology of religion. Moscow: Nauka: 140–148. (In Russ.)

Welzel C., Inglehart R.F. (2016) Misconceptions of Measurement Equivalence: Time for a Paradigm Shift. Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 49. No. 8: 1068–1094.

Zabaev I.V., Oreshina D.A., Prutskova E.V. (2012) Three Moscow parishes: main socio-demographic characteristics and attitudes of the large parish communities members. Moscow: PSTGU. (In Russ.)

Content No 8, 2017