Mit wem über Religion sprechen? Kirchenbindung und Opportunitäten als Determinanten der Wahl von Gesprächspartnern
The contribution reports an empirical study on how the frequency of talks about religion is connected with church affiliation and of opportunities. According to the particularism hypothesis people are expected to talk most frequently with familiy members, less frequently with church professionals an...
| Published in: | Theo-Web |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | German |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
[2015]
|
| In: |
Theo-Web
|
| RelBib Classification: | AD Sociology of religion; religious policy AE Psychology of religion KBB German language area RG Pastoral care |
| Further subjects: | B
Gespräche über Religion
B kirchliche Professionelle B Kirchenbindung B christliches und naturalistisches Weltbild |
| Summary: | The contribution reports an empirical study on how the frequency of talks about religion is connected with church affiliation and of opportunities. According to the particularism hypothesis people are expected to talk most frequently with familiy members, less frequently with church professionals and least frequently with persons beyond the family. According to the responsibility- and need-hypothesis church-affiliated persons are expected to talk more frequently with church professionals and family members than church-distanced persons. According to the biographical hypothesis being married and being parents is expected to increase the frequency of talking with church professionals and family members. And according to the resources hypothesis trust and social status are expected to increase the frequency of talking with persons beyond the family but not with church professionals and family members. These hypotheses are tested with reference to the ALLBUS 2012 survey among those who talk about religion at all. The particularism hypothesis is not confirmed, while the responsibility- and need-hypothesis as well as the biographical and the resources hypothesis are by and large confirmed. (English) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1863-0502 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Theo-Web
|