Why Strict Churches Are Strong', and at Several Department Seminars. I Thank Many Colleagues for Their Comments and Suggestions, Particularly

The strength of strict churches is neither a historical coicidence nor a statiscal artifact. Strictness makes organizations stronger an more attractive because it reduces free riding. It screens out members who lack commitment and and stimulates participation among those who remain. Rational choice theory thus explains the success of sect, cults, and conservative denominations without recourse to assumptions of irrationality, abnormality, or misinformation. The theory also predicts differences between strict and lenient groups, distinguishes between effective and counterproductive demands, and demonstrates the need to adapt strict demands in response to social change.

[1]  Donald B. Kraybill,et al.  The Riddle of Amish Culture. , 1990 .

[2]  Fritz Dumermuth.  Religion in Sociological Perspective , 1968 .

[3]  M. Harrison,et al.  American Jewish Denominations: A Social and Religious Profile , 1979 .

[4]  M. Olson,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. , 1973 .

[5]  R. Stark.  The Rise of a New World Faith , 1984 .

[6]  John K. Cochran,et al.  Religiosity and alcohol behavior: An exploration of reference group theory , 1988 .

[7]  L. Iannaccone,et al.  Dealing with Social Change: The Mormon Church's Response to Change in Women's Roles , 1990 .

[8]  T. Robbins,et al.  Cults, Converts, and Charisma , 1989 .

[9]  L. Iannaccone.  Sacrifice and Stigma: Reducing Free-riding in Cults, Communes, and Other Collectives , 1992, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  R. Stark,et al.  RELIGIOUS ECONOMIES AND SACRED CANOPIES: RELIGIOUS MOBILIZATION IN AMERICAN CITIES, 1906* , 1988 .

[11]  L. Iannaccone.  Religious Markets and the Economics of Religion , 1992 .

[12]  Benton Johnson.  Church and Sect Revisited , 1971 .

[13]  B. Wilson,et al.  Religion in Sociological Perspective. , 1983 .

[14]  R. Stephen Warner,et al.  Work in Progress Toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[15]  G. Kent,et al.  The future of religion , 1971 .

[16]  M. Abrahamson,et al.  Principles of Group Solidarity. , 1988 .

[17]  D. R. Hoge,et al.  Understanding church growth and decline, 1950-1978 , 1981 .

[18]  J. Walkup.  How institutions think , 1990 .

[19]  S. Beck,et al.  Religious Heritage and Premarital Sex: Evidence from a National Sample of Young Adults , 1991 .

[20]  Daniel V. A. Olson,et al.  Religions Resources and Church Growth , 1995 .

[21]  Sidney C. Sufrin,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. , 1966 .

[22]  E. Goode.  Some Critical Observations on the Church-Sect Dimension , 1967 .

[23]  B. Kosmin,et al.  Religious and ethnic self-identification in the United States 1989-90: a case study of the Jewish population. , 1992, Ethnic Groups.

[24]  F. Littell.  CHURCH AND SECT , 1954 .

[25]  Rosabeth Moss Kanter,et al.  Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective , 1972 .

[26]  J. Hall.  Social Organization and Pathways of Commitment: Types of Communal Groups, Rational Choice Theory, and the Kanter Thesis , 1988 .

[27]  W. Bainbridge.  Shaker Demographics 1840-1900: An Example of the Use of U.S. Census Enumeration Schedules , 1982 .

[28]  R. Hine.  California's Utopian Colonies , 1966 .

[29]  Allan W. Eister.  Toward a Radical Critique of Church-Sect Typologizing: Comment on "Some Critical Observations on the Church-Sect Dimension" , 1967 .

[30]  S. Z. Klausner,et al.  Society for the Scientific Study of Religion , 1965 .

[31]  D. Allen.  An inquiry into the state's role in marriage. , 1990, Journal of economic behavior & organization.