Feeling of happiness and what affects it .docx

Feeling of happiness and what affects it?
December 8, 2016
*
OverviewData was collected from
AzerbaijanAccording to last World Happiness Report
Azerbaijan was ranked 81st place.
Possible factors that affect feeling of happiness
War with Armenia
Corruption rate
Financial situations
Social equality
Variables Dependent variable: Feeling of happiness
Independent Variable: Satisfaction with financial situation of
household
Research Problem and Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis Ho: There is no relationship between the
feeling of happiness and satisfaction of financial situation or
household.
Alternative Hypothesis Ha: There is a relationship between the
feeling of happiness and satisfaction of financial situation or
household.
*
Data CollectionA sample of 1002 respondents was selected at
random from AzerbaijanThe data is on 429 different variables
including the feeling of happiness (V10) and Satisfaction of
Financial Situation of Household (V59)The data was recorded in
SPSS
*
Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive StatisticsNRangeMinimumMaximumMeanStd.
DeviationFeeling of happiness10023141.94.717Satisfaction with
financial situation of household100091105.612.537Valid N
(listwise)1000
*
Histograms
*
Scatter Plot
*

Regression AnalysisModel SummaryModelRR SquareAdjusted
R SquareStd. Error of the Estimate1.377a.142.141.665a.
Predictors: (Constant), Satisfaction with financial situation of
householdANOVAaModelSum of SquaresdfMean
SquareFSig.1Regression73.157173.157165.378.000bResidual44
1.479998.442Total514.636999a. Dependent Variable: Feeling of
happinessb. Predictors: (Constant), Satisfaction with financial
situation of householdCoefficientsaModelUnstandardized
CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSig.BStd.
ErrorBeta1(Constant)2.540.05149.778.000Satisfaction with
financial situation of household-.107.008-.377-12.860.000a.
Dependent Variable: Feeling of happiness
*

Results and ConclusionResults were significant,
F(1, 998)=73.157, p<.001
The null hypothesis was rejected.
There is a significant relationship between the feeling of
happiness and the satisfaction of financial situation or
household.
*
Recommendation and shortcomingsThe data source is old and
not reliable . New survey and collecting data is recommended
Read the article, and in 450-700 words address these prompts:
· Summarize the view of American critics of global firms that
import products purchased from developing country factories
that have bad working conditions and pay very low wages.
Also, summarize Dr. Krugman’s rebuttals.
· Put yourself in the shoes of the local owner/manager of one of
those factories in Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc. How would you
address American critics of your practices?
· Put yourself in the shoes of a poor farmer who recently moved
to the city to work in one of these factories. What would your
view on the issue of wages and conditions be?
Continue below for the reading material.
In Praise of Cheap Labor

Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all.
By Paul Krugman
For many years a huge Manila garbage dump known as Smokey
Mountain was a favorite media symbol of Third World poverty.
Several thousand men, women, and children lived on that dump-
-enduring the stench, the flies, and the toxic waste in order to
make a living combing the garbage for scrap metal and other
recyclables. And they lived there voluntarily, because the $10
or so a squatter family could clear in a day was better than the
alternatives.
The squatters are gone now, forcibly removed by Philippine
police last year as a cosmetic move in advance of a Pacific Rim
summit. But I found myself thinking about Smokey Mountain
recently, after reading my latest batch of hate mail.
The occasion was an op-ed piece I had written for the New York
Times, in which I had pointed out that while wages and working
conditions in the new export industries of the Third World are
appalling, they are a big improvement over the "previous, less
visible rural poverty." I guess I should have expected that this
comment would generate letters along the lines of, "Well, if you
lose your comfortable position as an American professor you
can always find another job--as long as you are 12 years old and
willing to work for 40 cents an hour."
Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of
globalization--of the transfer of technology and capital from
high-wage to low-wage countries and the resulting growth of
labor-intensive Third World exports. These critics take it as a
given that anyone with a good word for this process is naive or
corrupt and, in either case, a de facto agent of global capital in
its oppression of workers here and abroad.

But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that
clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral
tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because
they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-
cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest
beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers.
After all, global poverty is not something recently invented for
the benefit of multinational corporations. Let's turn the clock
back to the Third World as it was only two decades ago (and
still is, in many countries). In those days, although the rapid
economic growth of a handful of small Asian nations had started
to attract attention, developing countries like Indonesia or
Bangladesh were still mainly what they had always been:
exporters of raw materials, importers of manufactures.
Inefficient manufacturing sectors served their domestic markets,
sheltered behind import quotas, but generated few jobs.
Meanwhile, population pressure pushed desperate peasants into
cultivating ever more marginal land or seeking a livelihood in
any way possible--such as homesteading on a mountain of
garbage.
Given this lack of other opportunities, you could hire workers in
Jakarta or Manila for a pittance. But in the mid-'70s, cheap
labor was not enough to allow a developing country to compete
in world markets for manufactured goods. The entrenched
advantages of advanced nations--their infrastructure and
technical know-how, the vastly larger size of their markets and
their proximity to suppliers of key components, their political
stability and the subtle-but-crucial social adaptations that are
necessary to operate an efficient economy--seemed to outweigh
even a tenfold or twentyfold disparity in wage rates.
And then something changed. Some combination of factors that
we still don't fully understand--lower tariff barriers, improved
telecommunications, cheaper air transport--reduced the

disadvantages of producing in developing countries. (Other
things being the same, it is still better to produce in the First
World--stories of companies that moved production to Mexico
or East Asia, then moved back after experiencing the
disadvantages of the Third World environment, are common.) In
a substantial number of industries, low wages allowed
developing countries to break into world markets. And so
countries that had previously made a living selling jute or
coffee started producing shirts and sneakers instead.
Workers in those shirt and sneaker factories are, inevitably,
paid very little and expected to endure terrible working
conditions. I say "inevitably" because their employers are not in
business for their (or their workers') health; they pay as little as
possible, and that minimum is determined by the other
opportunities available to workers. And these are still extremely
poor countries, where living on a garbage heap is attractive
compared with the alternatives.
And yet, wherever the new export industries have grown, there
has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary
people. Partly this is because a growing industry must offer a
somewhat higher wage than workers could get elsewhere in
order to get them to move. More importantly, however, the
growth of manufacturing--and of the penumbra of other jobs
that the new export sector creates--has a ripple effect
throughout the economy. The pressure on the land becomes less
intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban
dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to
compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also
begin to rise. Where the process has gone on long enough--say,
in South Korea or Taiwan--average wages start to approach
what an American teen-ager can earn at McDonald's. And
eventually people are no longer eager to live on garbage dumps.
(Smokey Mountain persisted because the Philippines, until
recently, did not share in the export-led growth of its neighbors.

Jobs that pay better than scavenging are still few and far
between.)
The benefits of export-led economic growth to the mass of
people in the newly industrializing economies are not a matter
of conjecture. A country like Indonesia is still so poor that
progress can be measured in terms of how much the average
person gets to eat; since 1970, per capita intake has risen from
less than 2,100 to more than 2,800 calories a day. A shocking
one-third of young children are still malnourished--but in 1975,
the fraction was more than half. Similar improvements can be
seen throughout the Pacific Rim, and even in places like
Bangladesh. These improvements have not taken place because
well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help--
foreign aid, never large, has lately shrunk to virtually nothing.
Nor is it the result of the benign policies of national
governments, which are as callous and corrupt as ever. It is the
indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless
multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only
concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities
offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no
matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has
been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject
poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly
better.
Why, then, the outrage of my correspondents? Why does the
image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour
evoke so much more feeling than the image of another
Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to
feed his family on a tiny plot of land--or of a Filipino
scavenging on a garbage heap?
The main answer, I think, is a sort of fastidiousness. Unlike the
starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the
sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit--and

this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous
demands for international labor standards: We should not, the
opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those
sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive
decent wages and work under decent conditions.
This sounds only fair--but is it? Let's think through the
consequences.
First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World
export industries of higher wages and better working conditions,
this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers,
scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries'
populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to
our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy,
leaving the poor majority no better off.
And it might not even do that. The advantages of established
First World industries are still formidable. The only reason
developing countries have been able to compete with those
industries is their ability to offer employers cheap labor. Deny
them that ability, and you might well deny them the prospect of
continuing industrial growth, even reverse the growth that has
been achieved. And since export-oriented growth, for all its
injustice, has been a huge boon for the workers in those nations,
anything that curtails that growth is very much against their
interests. A policy of good jobs in principle, but no jobs in
practice, might assuage our consciences, but it is no favor to its
alleged beneficiaries.
You may say that the wretched of the earth should not be forced
to serve as hewers of wood, drawers of water, and sewers of
sneakers for the affluent. But what is the alternative? Should
they be helped with foreign aid? Maybe--although the historical
record of regions like southern Italy suggests that such aid has a
tendency to promote perpetual dependence. Anyway, there isn't

the slightest prospect of significant aid materializing. Should
their own governments provide more social justice? Of course--
but they won't, or at least not because we tell them to. And as
long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization
based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to
deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of
progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard--
that is, the fact that you don't like the idea of workers being
paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items.
In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-
righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And
when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking
things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a
moral duty.
Use SPSS
Individual Project: Use empirical evidence to explore the
political management research question posed in your
Individual Project Proposal. Detailed requirements will be
discussed in class and posted to Blackboard.
1. Construct a literature review. Must incorporate at least six
quality, academic sources. Note: a minimum of four of the
sources must be empirical pieces involving statistical analysis
of a relationship (i.e., testing whether independent variables
have a significant effect on a dependent variable).
2. Select a secondary dataset(s) from a legitimate source (e.g.,
General Social Survey, National Election Study, U.S. Census
Data, Department of Justice, Pew Research, World Development
Indicators, etc.) or construct your own primary survey (with my
approval) to gather primary data;
3. Analyze the variables and relationship(s) in SPSS using
appropriate statistical tests;
4. Draw conclusions and make actionable recommendations

based on results; and
5. Acknowledge shortcomings and make recommendations for
future research improvement.
E. Individual Project Presentation: Using PowerPoint or a
similar presentation tool, present your Individual Project
purpose, methods, analysis, results, and recommendations to the
class.
Use SPSS
2
Final Paper Checklist
· Intro
· Grabs attention.
· Makes subject relevant to today (i.e., Why should we care?)
· Clearly states what relationship you are investigating (e.g.,
This research will investigate the relationship between [state the
independent variable] and [state the dependent variable]).
· Lit Review Analysis – for each empirical piece (four
minimum) discuss:
· Purpose of the study?
· Who conducted the study?
· When was the study conducted?
· Where did the data come from?
· How was the data sampled?
· When was the data collected?
· How was the data collected?
· Size of the sample?
· Margin of error for the sample (for surveys only)?
· Key variables (ones that equate to your independent and
dependent variables) and how they were conceptualized/defined
and operationalized/measured?
· List of all other independent variables?

· What did the researcher find with emphasis on whether the
relationship between your variables of interest was statistically
significant and, if so, the measure of association/strength of the
relationship (e.g., too weak to be of any importance, weak,
moderate, strong)? Try to provide statistical test evidence for
the findings such as r2=.42, p=.000. Any other significance
findings that are relevant to your study?
· Provide a VERY succinct description of researchers’ argument
as to why the relationship exists or doesn’t exist between your
independent and dependent variable, based on the evidence.
· Discuss the piece’s shortcomings, if any, you feel need to be
noted about the findings or any other aspect of the research
design (note: this is particularly important when you include a
finding that is contrary to the expected outcome or other
outcomes you are including as evidence). Remember: unless
you are specifically noting shortcomings to discount a piece’s
findings that are contrary to your hypothesis, you shouldn’t
have very many shortcomings or you need to rethink whether
it’s a strong enough piece to be included in your study! If your
pieces are strong, there may not be any shortcomings to note.
· Lit Review Conclusion
· Summarize and compare and contrast all unique findings from
your lit review. Make sure to cite appropriately and often.
· Bridge to Methods and Findings Sections
· Add your purpose (e.g., “The next section of this paper
specifically tested whether there is a relationship between
religiosity and support for same sex marriage.”
· Data Source(s) Discussion: Discuss data source(s) before
univariate analysis if there is one source for all variables such
as when the individual is the unit of analysis and you are using
survey data such as the GSS. If you have a different data
source for each variable, discuss at the beginning of your
univariate analysis for each variable.
· What is the data source?
· What is the year(s) of the data?
· Who or what org collected it?

· How long has this type of data been collected?
· How was it collected?
· How was it sampled?
· Size of sample?
· Margin of error for the sample if the source is a survey?
· Any other info you feel helps make a case for reliability and
validity?
· Univariate Analysis (minimum of two - one for your
dependent variable and one for your independent variable). If
you include a control variable or additional independent
variables, you must conduct univariate analysis for ALL
variables included in your study. Complete univariate analysis
in whole for each variable – don’t jump back and forth between
variables with each piece of evidence.
· Conceptualize your variable (i.e., define the concept – don’t
use a tautology and don’t confuse this with how the variable
was operationalized/measured; use a conceptualization from one
of the pieces in you lit review or a dictionary and paraphrase
and cite.
· Operationalize your variable including providing the available
categories if the variable is nominal or ordinal.
· Provide the one best central tendency measure (CTM) with
appropriate statistical test evidence (e.g., mode, median, or
mean). If you have ratio/interval variables with an extreme
outlier(s), we need to talk before you continue with your
analysis!
· Analyze dispersion/variability with appropriate evidence (e.g.,
description of frequency distribution for nominal and ordinal
variables using frequency percentages to describe as low,
moderate, or high variability; standard deviation for
ratio/interval variables without extreme outliers).
· Calculate the 68% data range for Ratio/Interval level variables
only (i.e., add and subtract one standard deviation from the
mean to calculate the range where 68% of the cases lie).
· Insert a frequency table with a reference in your text (make
sure data is aligned under headers in your table).

· Insert an appropriate graphic with a reference in your text
(you may not be able to get a graphic for ratio/interval level
variables).
· Bivariate Analysis
· Provide your hypothesis (H1) and null hypothesis (H0);
include direction if your variables are ordinal v. ordinal, ordinal
v. ratio/interval, or ratio/interval v. ratio/interval.
· Provide visual analysis with appropriate evidence to support
your argument:
· Crosstabulation: Compare two cells in one row with the
biggest change in frequency column percent. Make sure to tell
which two cells, in which row; give their column percentages;
then subtract and use the difference between the two for your
predication of significance and strength.
· ANOVA: Look at the Box and Whiskers diagram and compare
the slope changes (purple lines, but don’t refer to them as
purple lines!) between the highest mean and the lowest mean
(red lines in the boxes, but don’t refer to them as red lines!) to
make your prediction for significance. Then quantify the
difference between the highest mean and the lowest mean as
evidence for your prediction.
· OLS Regression: Look at the scatterplot to determine
linearity, direction, and significance/strength.
· Report whether the relationship is significant or not with
appropriate statistical test evidence:
· Crosstabulation: Chi-squared test result, degrees of freedom,
and probability
· ANOVA: F test result and probability
· OLS Regression: F test result and probability
· Reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis based on the
significance test result. If the relationship wasn’t significant
you are done with your analysis – proceed to your conclusion.
· Report the measure of association/strength with appropriate
statistical test evidence if the relationship was significant.
· Crosstabulation
· Lambda or Cramer’s V if nominal v. nominal

· Cramer’s V if nominal v. ordinal
· Tau-b if ordinal v. ordinal square (e.g., 3X3, 4X4, etc)
· Tau-c if ordinal v. ordinal rectangle (e.g., 3X4, 3X5, etc)
· ANOVA – Eta2
· OLS Regression: Pearson Correlation Coefficient (R)
· Provide the PRE or equivalent statement
· For PRE measures (Lambda, Tau-b, Tau-c, Eta2, and Pearson
Correlation Coefficient (R2): Knowing [fill in unit of analysis
such as “a person’s” or “a state’s” or a “country’s”] [fill in the
independent variable] reduces the error in predicting [fill in the
dependent variable] by [convert measure of association into a
percentage] [add statistical test evidence for the measure of
association such as R2=.423]. Remember, for the Pearson
Correlation Coefficient (R) you must square the result to make
the PRE statement (R2).
· For non-PRE measures (Cramer’s V): Approximately [Convert
measure of association into a percentage] of the differences in
[fill in the dependent variable] can be attributed to [fill in the
independent variable] [add statistical test evidence for the
measure of association such as V=.423].
· Confirm the direction of the relationship using the slope (b)
(for OLS Regression only).
· Discuss the slope’s effect on the dependent variable using one
unit of the independent variable (unstandardized slope or b=?)
(for OLS Regression analysis only).
· Report the regression equation, filling in the variables and
values (for OLS Regression analysis only).
· Provide appropriate tables and graphs with references in text
(make sure data is aligned when you cut and paste).
· Final Conclusion
· Summarize your findings and compare and/or contrast them to
the results you summarized in your lit review
· Provide your argument as to why you think the variables have
this relationship. If the results from your significance test were
not significant, you will need to greatly expand this portion to
really analyze why your results weren’t significant when the

results in your literature were significant (e.g., Was it
something with your research design? Your data source? How
you operationalized? Has the relationship changed and your
results represent the true relationship? Etc.)
· Discuss shortcomings with your research and make
recommendations for future researchers.
· Overall Appearance, Publication Style, Cites, and Grammar
· Does your paper look professional? Check:
· All pages are accounted for
· Nothing has shifted in your tables or paragraphs
· You have a cover page
· All pages except the cover have a page number in the upper
right corner
· Stapled in the upper left corner
· Double-spaced throughout, including Works Cited page
· Minimized quotes – limited really to Intro to grab attention
and perhaps Conclusion (i.e., you have put summaries, analysis,
and evidence in your words and cited appropriately)
· All tables and figures have a consecutive number and a title
and they are all referenced at the appropriate places in the text
· No first person wording – remove any “I” or “we” statements
· No normative wording – check for words such as shall, must,
best, worst, good, bad, etc.
· Did you use MLA correctly? This is so important for this
paper. I will return your paper to you and it will be considered
late with a penalty for each day until it is returned in correct
MLA format.
· Have you cited often and correctly using MLA? More is
better. When in doubt, cite!
· Have you proofed your paper and read aloud, multiple times to
check for typos, changes in verb tense (recommend that you use
past tense throughout), poor grammar, and incorrect spelling?
Get your friends to read it for you. Get your family to read it
for you. Get your significant other to read it for you. I
guarantee they will be impressed and give you useful feedback!
· Did you post an electronic copy of your paper, in both Word

and a PDF, to Blackboard?
· Did you post your SPSS file (file with the .sav extension) to
Blackboard?
Religiosity and Support for the Ban on the Veil in the U.S. and
Western Europe

1
In September of 2003, two sisters, Alma and Lila Lévy, were
expelled from their high
school in the Paris suburbs for refusing to remove their
headscarves in class.
1
In October of the
same year, girls at a number of French high schools were sent
home for a very different reason;
their thongs, visible because of their low-cut pants and short
shirts, were deemed too provocative
for class.
2
Interestingly enough, it was the veil and not the thong that was

viewed as the more
problematic article of clothing and the one that warranted legal
intervention. A government
commission, the Stasi commission, was already studying a
proposed bill to outlaw signs of
religious affiliation in public schools, which when combined
with protestations of the Lévy girls
and others, created a national controversy
3
. In December 2003, the report was released,
recommending the ban of “conspicuous signs” of religious
affiliation.
4
On March 15, 2004 the
French government officially passed the “ban on the veil.”
5
For the French government the ban was intended to preserve the
highly valued French
principle of laïcité (i.e. the absence of religion in government
affairs) and to protect the
Republic’s democracy. And while the law includes any
conspicuous religious symbol, such as
Jewish yarmulkes or Sikh turbans, some still believe the law to
be primarily aimed at Muslim

girls and, consequently, the European Muslim community at
large.
6
The debate over the veil
continues as shortly after the passage of the ban in France
similar legislation was proposed in
1
Joan Wallach Scott, The Politics Of The Veil, (Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007),
p 30.
2
Joan Wallach Scott, The Politics of the Veil, p 112.
3
Ibid., 32-33
4
Ibid., 34-35.
5
Ibid., p 1.
6
Ibid, p 1. Stephen Croucher, Looking Beyond the Hijab,
(Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.,
2009), p 7.

2
Belgium, Australia, Holland and Bulgaria
7
, along with the cities of Berlin, Frankfurt and
Moscow
8
.
Currently, France and Belgium are the only Western countries
to have adopted such
measures, but a majority of citizens in countries across Western
Europe approve of the idea.
9
Conversely, there is strong opposition to the adoption of a ban
on the veil in the United States.
10
Why is there such dissention between these counties who share
so many of the same democratic
principles? While the governments of Western Europe and the
United States all regard the
separation of government and religion as a cornerstone of
democracy, the United States is more
religious than most Western European countries. Could
religiosity play a role in the divergence
over support for the ban on the veil? This paper will examine

the relationship between religiosity
and support for the ban on the veil.
Literature Review
As proposals for a ban on the veil in Western countries have
arisen only in the past
decade, very limited empirical research investigated the reasons
why most Western Europeans
support the ban or why support varies between Western
European countries and North American
countries. There have been studies, however, that have
examined Muslim immigration in
Western Europe and much attention has been given to the rise of
Islamic extremism and
terrorism among these immigrants.
11
Although research along these lines is increasingly
prevalent, it is still relatively recent having mainly emerged
after September 11
th
.
7
Joan Wallach Scott. The Politics of the Veil, p 2.

8
Stepehen Croucher, Looking Beyond the Hijab, p 7.
9
Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2010, “Widespread Support for
Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western
Europe,” Pew Global Attitudes Project,
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-
banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/
10
Europe.”
11
Including: Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2005, “Islamic
Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and
Western Publics,” Pew Global Attitudes Project,
http://www.pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-
3
The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project has
conducted some of the most
extensive research on support for the ban on the veil. The
Spring 2010 Pew Global Attitudes
Survey found that majorities in France, Germany, Britain and

Spain (82%, 71%, 62%, and 59%,
respectively) approve of ban on Muslim women wearing a full
veil in public places, while in the
United States 65% say they would disapprove of such a ban.
12
Data was collected via telephone
interviews using Random Digit Dialing (RDD) or Random Last
Two Digit Dial (RL(2)D).
Sample sizes are as follows: France 752, Germany 750, Britain
750, Spain 755 and the United
States 1,002.
13
The Pew Global Attitudes Project analyzed the relationship
between support for the ban
on the veil and age, gender, political ideology and income level
in these five countries. Support
for the ban was determined by asking respondents if they
approved or disapproved of a ban that
would forbid Muslim women from wearing a full veil that
covers the entire face apart from the
eyes in public places.
14
Political ideology was measured in Britain, France, Spain, and

Germany
by asking respondents, “Some people talk about politics in
terms of left, center and right. On a
left-right scale from 0 to 6, with 0 indicating extreme left and 6
indicating extreme right, where
would you place yourself?”
15
In the United States political ideology was measured by asking
respondents if, in general, they would describe their political
views as: 1) Very conservative 2)
extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/,
Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2007,
“World Publics Welcome Global Trade – But Not Immigration,”
Pew Global Attitudes Project,
http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-
global-trade-but-not-immigration/,
Esposito, John and Dalia Mogahed. Who Speaks for Islam?
What a Billion Muslims Really Think. New
York: Gallup, 2008.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14

Ibid.
15
Pew Global Attitudes Survey Spring 2010, “Final
Questionnaire,” Complete Report, Pew Global
Attitudes Project 2010,
banning-full-
islamic-veil-in-western-europe/
4
Conservative 3) Moderate 4) Liberal or 5) Very Liberal.”
16
Questions to measure income varied
in wording and responses form country to country but were
grouped by Pew researchers into the
categories low income, middle income and high income.
17
Participants provided their age in
years as well as their gender.
Pew’s findings indicated that there was no relationship between

gender and support for
the ban and that there was positive relationship between
political ideology and support for the
ban in France, Germany and Britain, although the statistical
strength of this relationship was not
provided.
18
Additionally, researchers noted that age influenced support in
all countries with older
respondents favoring the ban. Again, statistical significance was
not provided but researchers
states that, “In the four Western European countries surveyed as
well as in the U.S., support for a
ban on Muslim women wearing a full veil is more pronounced
among those who are age 55 and
older”
19
Finally, in the U.S., Britain and Germany researchers found
that there was no significant
relationship between income level and ban support, but in Spain
and German those in the middle
and higher income levels were more likely to approve of the
ban.
20

The number of countries
included, and their large sample sizes greatly strengthen this
study, but additional indicators for
political ideology and additional variables, such as religiosit y,
political tolerance and prejudice,
could be included to improve the results.
The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project also
conducted a similar study in
2005, this time examining the relationship between support for
the ban on the veil, concern about
Islamic extremism and the perception that Muslims want to be
distinct from the larger society.
16
Questionnaire”
17
Ibid.
18
Europe.”
19
Ibid.

20
Ibid.
5
The 2005 Global Attitudes Survey data was collected through
telephone interviews with sample
sizes for the North American and Western European countries
relevant to this study as follows:
Britain 750, Germany 750, Spain 751, France 751, Netherlands
754, Canada 500 and the United
States 1001.
21
All respondents were 18 years or older.
22
Survey results in Britain, Germany,
Spain, France, the Netherlands and Canada all had a 4% margin
of error while the United States
had a 3% margin of error.
In this study, support for the ban was determined by asking
respondents, “Some countries
have decided to ban the wearing of head scarves by Muslim

women in public places including
schools. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?”
23
Concerns about Islamic extremism
were measured by asking respondents, “How concerned, if at
all, are you about Islamic
extremism in our country these days? Are you very concerned,
somewhat concerned, not too
concerned or not at all concerned about Islamic extremism in
our country these days?”
24
Finally,
the perception that Muslims want to be distinct from the larger
society of the respondent’s
country by asking, “Do you think most Muslims coming to our
country today want to adopt
(survey country) customs and way of life or do you think that
they want to be distinct from the
larger (survey country) society?”
25
Respondents answers were categorizes as 1) Adopt our ways
2) Want to be distinct and 3) Both (if respondent volunteered
this answer).
26

The survey found that there was a relationship between concern
about Islamic extremism
and support for the ban on the veil. Researchers did not include
statistical significance but stated
that, “across Western Europe and North America, those
supportive of the ban register greater
21
Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2005, “Islamic Extremism:
Common Concern for Muslim and Western
Publics”
22
2005 “Methods in Detail”
23
Pew Global Atittudes Survery 2005 “Non-Muslim
Questionnaire”
24
Ibid
25
Ibid
26
Ibid

6
concern about Islamic extremism in their countries”
27
Researchers also found a relationship
between an individual’s perception of Muslims and their support
for the ban stating that, “people
in non-Muslim countries who think a ban is a good idea also are
more likely to perceive Muslims
in their country as wanting to be distinct from the larger
society.”
28
Again, the large sample sizes
and international coverage Pew includes in this study strengthen
their findings. In regards to the
question of the veil, however, additional variables, such as
religiosity, prejudice, political
tolerance, political ideology, income level and age could be
included.
In 2010 Jolanada van der Noll of Jacobs University, Germany
analyzed public support for
a ban on headscarves in the U.K., Germany, France and the
Netherlands using data from the Pew

Research Center’s 2005 survey on Islamic extremism. Van der
Noll conducted a cross-national
comparison of the effect of an individual’s overall attitude
towards Muslims, an individual’s
perception of Muslims wanting to be distinct and an
individual’s perceived security threat of
Muslims and Islam on their support the ban on the headscarf.
The study is one of the few to
compare cross-national support for the ban and to emphasize the
importance of the national
context.
29
As noted above, the Pew 2005 survey data was collected
through telephone interviews
with sample sizes as follows: Britain 750, Germany 750, France
751, Netherlands 754.
30
All
respondents were 18 years or older.
31
Survey results in Britain, Germany, Spain, France, the
27 Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2005, “Islamic Extremism:
Common Concern for Muslim and Western

Publics” p 5.
28 Ibid.
29
Jolanda van der Noll, "Public Support for a Ban on
Headscarves: A Cross-National Perspective,"
International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, no. 2 (2010):
191-204, http://search.proquest.com/
docview/863244215/fulltextPDF/139B378E7BC285F6195/6?acc
ountid=11243 (accessed October 11,
2012).
30
Ibid.
31
2005 “Methods in Detail”
7
Netherlands and Canada all had a 4% margin of error while the
United States had a 3% margin
of error.
32
The dependent variable, support for the ban on the veil, was
measured through the

following question: “Some countries have decided to ban the
wearing of head scarves by Muslim
women in public places including schools. Do you think this is
a good idea or a bad idea?”
33
Respondents answered either “good idea” or “bad idea.” The
variable “overall attitude towards
Muslims” was measured by asking respondents, “Please tell me
if you have a very favorable,
somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable
opinion of Muslims?
Respondents were rated a 4-point scale and then recoded by van
der Noll into a scale with 0
representing a very favorable opinion, .33 a favorable opinion,
.67 an unfavorable opinion and 1
a very unfavorable opinion.
34
Perceived threat of Muslims was measured by three questions.
First, to measure perceived symbolic threat, respondents were
asked, ““Do you think most
Muslims coming to our country today want to adopt (survey
country) customs and way of life or
do you think that they want to be distinct from the larger
(survey country) society?”

35
Respondents answered either “adopt out ways” or “want to be
distinct.”
36
Second, to measure a
perceived security threat the question, “How concerned, if at
all, are you about Islamic
extremism in our country these days? Are you very concerned,
somewhat concerned, not too
concerned or not at all concerned about Islamic extremism in
our country these days?”
37
was
asked. Van der Noll reduced the original 4-point scale to a
three-point scale by collapsing the
responses “not too concerned” and “not at all concerned.”
38
Finally, respondents were asked to
32 Ibid.
33
Questionnaire”
34

Headscarves: A Cross-National Perspective," 196.
35
Questionnaire”
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid
38
Headscarves: A Cross-National Perspective," 196.
8
choose between the statements “some religions are more prone
to violence than others” and “all
religions are about the same when it comes to violence.” If
respondents choose the first statement
they were then asked which religion they perceived as the most
violent – Christianity, Islam,
Judaism and Hinduism. Responses were then divided into
categories, those who said “all

religions are about the same” and those who indicated a religion
other an Islam to be the most
violent. This measurement assumes that those who perceive
Islam to be violent would also have
a perceived threat of Muslims.
Van der Noll found great differences in support for the ban on
the veil from country to
country. For example, there was a moderate association between
an individual’s perception of
Muslims wanting to be distinct and support for the ban in the
U.K., France and the Netherlands
(p < .22), but not in Germany.
39
Additionally, the relationship between an individual’s
perception
of Islam as a violent religion and support for the ban was
stronger in Germany and the
Netherlands than in the U.K. and France.
40
Van der Noll concludes that these differences are due,
in part, to the strong secular and multicultural traditions that
exist in France and the U.K.
respectively.
41

Overall, there was a weak relationship between fears of Islamic
extremism and
support for the ban in all the countries analyzed (p < .19)
42
and a moderate relationship between
negative attitudes and support for the ban (p <.30).
43
Since this study utilized the 2005 Pew
Survey data it faced the same limitations, in that additional
variables – like political ideology and
religiosity, were not included. Furthermore, additional
measurements of an individual’s attitude
towards Muslims and an individual’s perceived threats could be
included to strengthen the
results.
39
Ibid, 199.
40
Ibid, 200.
41
Ibid, 200.
42

Ibid, 199.
43
Ibid, 198.
9
In February 2009 scholars Vassilis Saroglou, Bahija
Lamkaddem, Matthieu Van
Pachterbeke, Coralie Buxant from the Catholic University of
Louvain, Belgium conducted two
studies analyzing the role of subtle prejudice, values and
religion on Belgian society’s dislike of
the Islamic veil. For the first study a research assistant
approached adult passengers at the central
train stations in three major cities in the French speaking part of
Belgian (making an effort to
avoid passengers who appeared to belong to the Arab-Muslim
community) and asked passengers
if they would like to participate in a study on the Belgian
perception of the veil. The
questionnaire was distributed to 328 individuals who received
no monetary compensation and

were instructed to mail the survey to a research assistant in two
weeks. A total sample of size of
166 Belgian residents was retained for the first analysis with an
average age of 46.86 years.
Women represented 60% of the sample and 68% of participants
indicated a Christian
affiliation.
44
The key variables included anti-veil attitudes, religiousness
and spirituality. Anti-veil
attitudes were measured through feelings of aversion to the veil
and a willingness to ban the veil.
For example, participants indicated on a 7-point Likert scale
their agreement with the statement
“The wearing of the Muslim veil should be prohibited in some
places.”
45
Two separate indexes
were utilized to measure religiousness and spirituality and
resulted in the classification of
participants into four categories: 1) literal (orthodox) believer,
2) symbolic believers, 3) symbolic
non-believer and 4) literal non-believers. To control for inter-
correlated variables a multiple

44
Vassilis Saroglou, Bahija Lamkaddem, Matthieu Van
Pacterbeke, and Coralie Buxant, "Host soceity’s
dislike of the Islamic veil: The role of subtle prejudice, values,
and religion," International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 33, no. 5 (2009): 419-428,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01471767090
00194 (accessed October 10, 2012), 421.
45
Saroglou, “Host society’s dislike of the Islamic veil,” p 422.
10
regression analysis was run. Researchers found that there was a
weak and positive relationship
between anti-veil attitudes and literal anti-religious (B = .13, t
= 1.81, p = .08).
46
In the second study questionnaires were distributed to
participants using the snowball
methodology through the acquaintances of students at the

university and research assistants. A
sample of 147 participants, 64% of who were women and 67.3%
of whom were Catholic, with
an average age of 39.6 years was analyzed.
47
The same variables from the first study (anti-veil
attitudes, religiousness and spirituality) were used in this study.
As in the first study, anti-veil
attitudes were measured through feelings of aversion to the veil
and a willingness to ban the veil.
For example, participants indicated on a 7-point Likert scale
their agreement with the statement
“The wearing of the Muslim veil should be prohibited in some
places.”
48
Two separate indexes
were utilized to measure religiousness and spirituality and
resulted in the classification of
participants into four categories: 1) literal (orthodox) believer,
2) symbolic believers, 3) symbolic
non-believer and 4) literal non-believers. In addition to these
original variables, researchers
added measurements concerning an individual’s aversion to the
veil. These measurements

included the questions, ‘‘Wearing the Muslim veil goes against
the grain of modern society’’;
‘‘Ostensible religious signs should not be allowed in the public
space’’; and ‘‘If they perceive it
to be a religious symbol, I find it normal that Muslim women
have to respect the veil everywhere
they are’’ (reversed).
49
Responses to these questions were judged using the 7-point
Likert scale.
The second study confirmed the results of the previous study,
showing a positive and
moderate relationship between literal anti-religious thinking and
anti-veil attitudes (B = .19, t =
46
Ibid, 424.
47
Ibid, 425.
48
Ibid, 422.
49
Ibid, 425.

11
2.10, p = .04).
50
A negative relationship anti-veil attitudes and both
religiousness (-.15, p < .10)
and spirituality was also found (-.24, p < .01).
51
The second study also found that while orthodox
religious people, like literal anti-religious people, had negative
representations of the veil they
were not in favor of a ban on the veil.
52
In conclusion, the researchers found religiousness and
spirituality to be significant factors
in determining anti-veil attitudes.
53
The radical anti-religious identification was especially
critical in predicting negative attitudes towards the veil.
54
This is particularly important, as

Belgium, along with France, is one of the most secular countries
in Europe.
55
While this study
carefully defined variables and examined a number of critical
issues surrounding the veil, it was
very limited in size and since non-probability convenience and
snowball samples were used the
information collected may be less valid.
As so little empirical research exists on support for the ban on
the veil, theoretical
examinations of the origin of the ban remain critical resources
for identifying potential
explanations of cross-national differences in support. Joan
Wallach Scott, a well-known scholar
of French and gender studies, published The Politics of the Veil
in 2007. This seminal work on
the headscarf controversy in France identified and examined
four influences on support for the
ban: racism, secularism, individualism and sexuality.
56
Wallach concludes that the legacy of
colonialism – especially high number of Arab immigrants

seeking work in under-employed
France – contributes to ongoing racism in France and influences
French fear and dislike of the
50
Ibid, 424, 425.
51
Ibid, 424, 425.
52
Ibid, 426.
53
Ibid, 426, 427.
54
Ibid, 427.
55
Ibid, 426.
56
For the purposes of this paper only Wallach’s theories on
racism, individualism and secularism will be
examined.
12

veil.
57
Wallach also explains that the tension between individualism
and communalism has
motivated support for the ban as well. She explains that many
saw the headscarf as an instrument
of repression forced on young girls by their families who
adhered to ancient communitarian
practices. The French place a high value on individualism – not
communalism – and
consequently, “those who supported the ban conceived of it as a
valiant action by the modern
French state to rescue girls from the obscurity and oppression of
traditional communities, thus
opening their loves to knowledge and freedom…the contractions
– that legislation designed to
provide choice ended up denying it – was not perceived as such
by the law’s champions”
58
Of particular interest in the context of religiosity and support
for the veil are Scott’s
descriptions of the role of secularism in France and in the
United States. She recounts that, “in
America, the home to religious minorities who fled persecution

at the hands of European rulers,
the separation between church and state was meant to protect
religions from unwarranted
government intervention,” while in France, “separation was
intended to secure the allegiance of
individuals to the republic and so break the political power of
the Catholic church.”
59
These
descriptions give insight into the way governments, and to an
extent their citizens, view religion
and its role in daily life. They explain why in France the ban
may be seen as a defense of civil
liberties, while in the United States it is more likely to be seen
as a violation. While Scott’s work
does focus specifically on France, the conclusions it draws are
applicable to other Western
European countries who support the ban on the veil as they
share may of the same cultural norms
and historical experiences. Furthermore, as France was the first
Western country to implement a
ban on the veil, it has critical impact on the narrative of the
headscarf debate.

57
Joan Wallach Scott. The Politics of the Veil, 42-89.
58
Ibid, 125.
59
Ibid, 91.
13
Dr. Stephen Croucher also examines support for the ban on the
veil in his work Looking
Beyond the Hijab a case study, which examines the cultural
integration of France’s Muslim
population through face-to-face interviews with both Muslims
and non-Muslims in France. In
2009, Croucher conducted his interviews in the following
French cities: Lille, Lyon, Bordeaux
and Paris so as include a wide geo-graphic range and cities with
varying number of Muslim
inhabitants.
60
Croucher used a convenience sample to find non-Muslims
participants by asking

acquaintances in each city to introduce him to their friends, co-
workers, neighbors etc.
61
Croucher interviewed 23 Non-Muslim participants, 13 males
and 10 female, all of whom were
born in France.
62
Interviews were conducted in either French or English (the
participant chose)
and all French to English translations were double checked by a
bilingual speaker.
63
Croucher’s research finds that most non-Muslims believe the
law protects France’s
highly valued secularity, but many also see it as protection
against the growing number of
Muslims in France who in the opinion of the interviewees) do
not want to adapt to French
culture.
64
The role of religion in relation to the ban is addressed by
Catherine, a 52-year-old
psychologist. Catherine explains, “I think it is very difficult

[pause] at least for people in France
to understand why people need to be open about religion…I
think it is because we think religion
is a very personal choice and not a public one.”
65
Another participant, 29-year-old Andrew,
offers a similar explanation, observing:
In France we have long tradition of free religion because state is
secular…It is not like in
the U.S. [pause] our currency does not have God on it. So when
girls want to wear veils
60
Stephen Croucher, Looking Beyond the Hijab, Cresskill, New
Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 2009, 55.
61
Stephen Croucher, Looking Beyond the Hijab57
62
Ibid 60
63
Ibid 62
64
Ibid 104
65

Ibid 105
14
to schools or when others want crosses [pause] they each being
God to schools. This is
[pause] well it is totally against all that is secular.
66
Thus, Croucher’s case study indicates that an individual’s
opinion on the role religion in public
can certainly influence one’s support for the ban on the veil.
Like the Pew Global Attitudes 2005
Survey team and researcher Joalanda van der Noll, Croucher
also finds that an individual’s
perception of Muslims and Islam impacts their opinion on the
ban on the veil.
While not empirical, Croucher’s work does offer first hand
evidence of possible reasons
for support for the ban on the veil in Western. It suggests that
differences in religion in the
United States and France might explain cross-national

differences in support for ban. While this
case study is limited to France, only includes a select number of
participants who were chosen
via an non-statistical convenience sample, and does not include
any empirical evidence, it is
valuable as a case-study that provides descriptive explanations
of a difficult topic.
In conclusion, Stephen Croucher and J.W. Scott have examined
the social, political and
economic circumstances surrounding the ban on the veil in
France and discovered potential
causes for the public’s support of the ban. They also suggest
possible explanations for the cross-
national differences in support for the ban on the veil. The ban
on the veil is an extremely
complicated subject that includes a number of concepts that are
difficult to empirically measure
(prejudice, tolerance, religiosity) so non-empirical evaluations
like Croucher’s and Scott’s are
crucial to any researcher.
Furthermore, while the body of empirical research examining
causes behind support the
ban of the veil (or lack thereof) in Western Europe is limited,
researchers have found a number

of variables that influence support for the ban on the veil.
Researchers at the Pew Research
Center and scholar Jolanada van der Noll found that fear of
extremism and perceptions of Islam
66 105
15
and Muslims effected support for the ban on the veil. Pew
researches also found that political
ideology and income influence support. In terms of the effect of
religiosity, while support for the
ban on the veil was not directly measured, Vassilis Saroglou
and her team did find a significant
relationship between religiousness and spirituality and opinions
on the Islamic veil. None of
these studies, however, directly considered the effect of
religiosity on support for the ban on the
veil and only one study emphasized cross-national comparison.
Consequently, further research
analyzing the role of religion (either as the sole independent
variable or in combination with

other variables) on support for the ban on the veil in Europe and
the United States and the reason
behind the differences in support in Western Europe and the
U.S. is greatly needed.
Data Analysis
This study examined the relationship between a person’s
religiosity and their support for
the ban on the veil among citizens of France, Germany, the
United Kingdom, Spain and the
United States. The data utilized for analysis was acquired by the
Pew Global Attitudes Project, a
subset of the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan fact tank that
conducts independent research
through public opinion surveys. The Pew Global Attitudes
Project has conducted research since
its inception in 2001, sampling nations across the globe. In
2010, the Pew Global Attitudes
Project conducted a 22-nation survey, surveying public opinion
on a variety of topics including
religion and the ban on the veil for Muslim women. Sample
sizes for the data collected in the
countries examined in this study include: 1) United States: 1002
2) Britain: 750 3) France: 752 4)

Germany: 750 and 5) Spain: 755.
67
All countries had a margin of error between 4% and 5%. The
67
Pew Global Attitudes Survey Spring 2010, “Methods in
Detail,” Complete Report, Pew Global
Attitudes Project, 2010,
banning-full-
islamic-veil-in-western-europe/
16
data was collected via telephone interviews using Random Digit
Dialing (RDD) or Random Last
Two Digit Dial (RL(2)D).
68
The independent variable, religiosity, is commonly known as
religious commitment. The
concept was extensively studied by researchers Glock and Stark
who defined religiosity using
five dimensions: experiential, ritualistic, ideological,

intellectual and consequential.
69
For this
study, religiosity was conceptually defined as how religious an
individual is. Religiosity was
measured by the variable “RELGIOSTY” which was calculated
by posing the following question
to participants in Britain, France, Germany, Spain and the
United States: “People practice their
religion in different ways. Outside of attending religious
services, do you pray several times a
day, once a day, a few times a week, once a week or less, or
never?”70 Participants then choose
an answer from the categories: 1) Several times a day, 2) Once a
day, 3) A few times a week, 4)
Once a week or less, 5) Never, 8) Don’t know, 9) Refused.71
Central Tendency was measured
using the median which was 5) Never (See Table 1). Variability
was measured using frequency
percentages and was found to be moderate with 37.1 percent
responding 5) Never, 20.9%
responding 4) Once a week or less, 10.7 responding 3) A few
times a week, 15.4% responding 2)
Once a day, 14.7% responding 1) Several times a day and 1.3%

not knowing or refusing to
respond (See Table 1). A bar chart is included to graphically
display the data (See Figure 1).
68
Pew Global Attitudes Survey Spring 2010, “Methods in Detail”
69
Barbara Holdcroft, "What Is Religiosity?" Catholic Education,
10, no. 1 (2006): 89-103.
70
Questionnaire”
71
Questionnaire”
17
Figure 1: Bar Graph of the Independent Variable, Religiosity

Table 1: Frequency Distribution Table for the Independent
Variable, Religiosity
18
Table 2: Frequency Table for the Independent Variable, Support
For The Ban On The Veil

The dependent variable, support for the ban on the veil, was
conceptually defined as a
person’s approval or disapproval of a national ban on Muslim
women wearing a full veil in
public places. The variable “SPRTBAN” measured support by
asking citizens in Britain,
France72, Germany, Spain and the United States the following
question, “Some countries are
considering a ban on Muslim women wearing full veils that
cover all of the face except the eyes
in public places including schools, hospitals, and government
offices. Would you approve or
disapprove of such a ban in (survey country)?”73 Survey
participants indicated their responses
with the choices 1) Approve 2) Disapprove 8) Don’t Know or 9)
Refused. Central tendency was
measured using modem which was 1) Approve (See Table 2).
Variability was measured using
frequency percentages, which indicated high variability as
58.2% approved and 41.8%
disapproved (See Table 2). A bar graph graphically displays the
data for the SPRTBAN variable
(See Figure 2).

72
Note: In France the wording of the questions was slightly
changed as the French government was
actively considering such a ban on the veil. The question was
worded as follows: “The government is
considering a ban on Muslim women wearing full veils that
cover all of the face except the eyes in public
places including schools, hospitals, and government offices. Do
you approve or disapprove of such a
ban?” For this study the answers to both questions were
aggregated to create the variable “SPRTBAN.”
73
Questionnaire”
19
Figure 2: Bar Chart for the Dependent Variable, Support For

The Ban On The Veil
The hypothesis and null hypothesis utilized were:
H1: There is a negative relationship between religiosity and
support for the ban on the veil
H0 : There is no relationship between religiosity and support for
the ban on the veil.
The column percentages from the cross tabulation test indicated
that there was a
moderate relationship between the two variables as there was as
there was a 21.5% difference
between the column “several times a day” and the column
“Never” across the row “Approve”
(See Table 3). As the probability is less than .05 (chi-square =
102.209, DF = 4.0, and p = 0.000)
the relationship was statistically significant and the null

hypothesis was rejected (See Figure 3).
Cramer’s V indicated a weak degree of association between
religiosity and support for the ban
on the veil (Crammer’s V = .164) (See Table 3).
20
Table 3: Frequency Table with Column Percentages for
“SPRTBAN” and “RELIGIOSTY

Figure 3: Cross Tabulation Results for “SPRTBAN” and
“RELIGIOSTY”
21
Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that there is a
relationship between
religiosity and support for the ban on the veil in the United
States and Western Europe. Those
individuals who demonstrate higher religiosity are less likely to
support the ban on the veil.
Therefore, religiosity could be a key component to
understanding the vast differences between

for support of the ban on the veil that are seen between the
United States in Western Europe,
especially considering that the United States has a higher rate of
religiosity than Western
Europe.
74
These results, however, are preliminary. While the data
contained large sample sizes
that increased credibility, only one measurement of religiosity
was used and control variables
were not included.
As the Pew Research Center, Joalanda van der Noll and Vassilis
Saroglou find in their
research there are multiple factors that influence support for the
ban on the veil. These researches
found that political ideology, negative perceptions of Islam and
Muslims and age were important
factors in determining support for the ban on the veil.
Consequently, additional empirical
analyses should be conducted that combine these variables.
Future researchers should examine
the relationship between the independent variables religiosity,
political ideology, negative
perceptions of Muslims and Islam (and/or prejudice) and age

and the dependant variable support
for the ban on the veil. And, as J.S. Wallach notes, different
ideas of secularity and immigrant
assimilation can contribute to support for the ban on the veil, so
these concepts should be
operationalized and incorporated as well. Additional
measurements of religiosity should also be
74
The Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2010 finds that: “Religious
commitment is similarly low among
Western Europeans – only about a quarter in Germany, Italy and
Spain, and somewhat fewer in Britain
and France say religion is very important to them. By
comparison, a majority of Americans say that
religion is very important and that they pray at least once a day.
Nearly four-in-ten (38%) say they attend
religious services at least once a week.”
22
included in future studies. Cross-national comparisons should
also consider the size of the

Muslim population in each compared country as this could
influence support for the ban as well.
23
Bibliography
Croucher, Stephen, Looking Beyond the Hijab, Cresskill, New
Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.,

2009.
Esposito, John and Moghaded, Dalia, Who Speaks for Islam?
What a Billion Muslims Really
Think. New York: Gallup, 2008.
Holdcroft, Barbara. "What Is Religiosity?." Catholic Education.
10. no. 1 (2006): 89-103.
Van der Noll, Jolanda, "Public Support for a Ban on
Headscarves: A Cross-National
Perspective," International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4,
no. 2 (2010): 191-204,
http://search.proquest.com/
docview/863244215/fulltextPDF/139B378E7BC285F6195/6?acc
ountid=11243.
Banning Full Islamic Veil in
Western Europe,” Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2010,
banning-full-islamic-veil-
in-western-europe/
Pew Global Attitudes Survey Spring 2010, “Methods in Detail,”
Complete Report, Pew Global
Attitudes Project, 2010,

Questionnaire,” Complete Report, Pew Global
Attitudes Project 2010,
Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2007, “World Publics Welcome
Global Trade – But Not
Immigration,” Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2007,
http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-
global-trade-but-not-
immigration/
24
Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2005, “Islamic Extremism:
Common Concern for Muslim and
Western Publics,” Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2005,
http://www.pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-
common-concern-for-muslim-

and-western-publics/
Saroglou, Vassilis, Lamkaddem, Bahija Van Pacterbeke,
Matthieu and Coralie Buxant, "Host
soceity’s dislike of the Islamic veil: The role of subtle
prejudice, values, and religion,"
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, no. 5
(2009).
Scott, Joan Wallach, The Politics Of The Veil, Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 2007.
WV6_Data_Azerbaijan_2011-2012_spss_v_2016-01-01.sav

Feeling of happiness and what affects it .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from hallettfaustina

More from hallettfaustina (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Feeling of happiness and what affects it .docx