In the sociology of religion, there are many approaches to measuring religiosity. Most of the methodological literature focuses on operationalizing the concept—determining important aspects of religiosity and selecting the right indicators. At the same time, little attention has been given to the reverse operation—the construction of a common descriptor of religiosity. We consider three approaches to this problem: 1) using individual indicators; 2) constructing a general descriptor of religiosity on the basis of several indicators with the application of summation, averaging, and the principles of the strongest or weakest answer or factor analysis; and 3) constructing a typology based on several descriptors by identifying relatively homogeneous groups of religiosity using cluster analysis or latent class analysis. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach are discussed. In the case of multiple social forms of religiosity, the latter approach is most productive. The article presents the typology of Orthodox Russians, built using hierarchical cluster analysis based on data gathered by the Orthodox Monitor all-Russian survey (2011). The typology is based on four indicators: faith in God, frequency of church attendance, frequency of attending religious services, and the frequency of making confession and taking communion. Nine groups were identified using our analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prustkova et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: