Exploring interreligious unions in Austria: Trends, patterns, fertility, and children’s

religious affiliation

Raya Mutarak1 and Maria Rita Testa1

1Wittgenstein Centre (IIASA, VID/ÖAW, WU)

European Population Conference 2014, Budapest, 25-28 June 2014

Figure 1: Flowchart of relationships between modernization and family behaviours

Modernization

Increase no religion

Lower fertility

Increase interreligious unions

Modernized

Research questions• What are individual characteristics associatedwith interreligious partnership formation?

• How does changing religious composition in aregion of residence influences interreligiouspartnership formation?

• What is a religious affiliation of children ofinterreligious unions?

• Does fertility of women in interreligious uniondiffer from those in endogamous partnership?

Data• 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001 Austrian Population Census

(10% sample)• Obtained via IPUMS InternationalSample• Interreligious unions: Men and women currently in

partnership and living with a spouse/partner (n=708,286couples)

• Religion of children: Children aged ≤ 18, never married,living with both parents (n=630,626 children)

• Fertility: Women aged ≥ 15 in 1981 and 1991, aged ≥ 16 in2001 (n=111,041 women)

Figure 2: % distribution of interreligious unions by gender and Census year

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1971 1981 1991 2001

Men

No religion Catholic ProtestantJewish Muslim Total

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1971 1981 1991 2001

Women

No religion Catholic ProtestantJewish Muslim Total

Interreligious partnership

Figure 3: Correlation between religious diversity index and interreligious unions in 35 Austrian regions (NUTS3)

Weinviertel

West‐und 

Südsteiermark

Linz

Graz Vienna

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

% Interreligious union

Religious diversity index

1971

r=0.91*** Weinviertel

West‐ und Südsteiermark

Linz Graz

Vienna

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

% Interreligious union

Religious diversity index

1981

r=0.94***

Weinviertel

West‐ und Südsteiermark

Linz

GrazVienna

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

% Interreligious union

Religious diversity index

1991

r=0.85***

Weinviertel

West‐ und Südsteierm

ark

LinzGrazVienna

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

% Interreligious union

Religious diversity index

2001

r=0.78***

Interreligious partnership

Multivariate results: Logistic estimates of probability of being in interreligious unions by gender

• Positively associated with “modern” characteristics‐ High education‐ Having no religion‐ Hypogamy partnership (i.e. female education > male education)

‐ Cohabitation/remarriage• Opportunity matters‐ Catholics is the most common group being partnered with in an interreligious union. 

‐ Positively associated with religious diversity

Interreligious partnership

Figure 4: % distribution of children’s religion by father’s and mother’s religion

Children’s religious affiliation

95.1 89.1 84.0 84.0 83.7

55.145.5

1.71.5

6.91.6

12.9

3.5

1.2 6.28.2

4.18.6

10.4

31.8

3.1 2.8 5.7 3.9 5.4

12.817.8

8.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%alldifferent

same asfather

same asmother

onlyparentsthe sameall thesame

Endogamous parents

Intermarried mother

Intermarried father

0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.0

Birth cohort

at least one parent is Protestant

Figure 5: % children with no religion by birth cohort and parents’ types of partnerships (excluding parents with no religion)

Children’s religious affiliation

Endogamous parents

Intermarried motherIntermarried 

father

0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.0

Birth cohort

at least one parent is Catholic

Endogamous parents

Intermarried mother

Intermarried father

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Birth cohort

at least one parent is Muslim

Endogamous parents

Intermarried motherIntermarried 

father

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Birth cohort

at least one parent has other religion

Multivariate results: Logistic estimates of probability of having no religion for children aged ≤18 

• Positively associated with “modern” characteristics

‐ Education of both parents‐ Birth cohort• Place of residence matters‐ Living  in Vienna, Graz, Salzburg (compared to Linz)

Children’s religious affiliation

Fertility by partnership typeFigure 7: Mean number of children ever born for women by age group and type of partnership: 1981, 1991,2001 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

315

 ‐ 19

20 ‐ 24

25 ‐ 29

30 ‐ 34

35 ‐ 39

40 ‐ 44

45 ‐ 49

50 ‐ 54

55 ‐ 59

60 ‐ 64

65 ‐ 69

70 ‐ 74

75 ‐ 79 80+

Endogamous partnership Interreligious partnership

Fertility by partnership typeFigure 8: Mean number of children ever born for women by birth cohort and type of partnership: 1981, 1991,2001 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1981 1991 2001 1981 1991 2001

Endogamous partnership Interreligious partnership

1957‐66

1947‐56

1937‐46

1927‐36

1917‐26

Fertility by partnership typeFigure 9: Mean number of children ever born for women by religion and type of partnership: 1981, 1991, 2001

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

No religion OtherChristian

Protestant Catholic Jewish Muslim

Endogamous partnership Interreligious partnership

Discussion

• Less “traditional” individuals are more likely to be in interreligious unions

• Interreligious partnership accelerates “modernization” 

‐ Increasing the chance of children having no religion‐ Having lower fertility 

• Caveat: Data available up to 2001• Next step: Comparative analysis with other countries e.g. Switzerland

muttarak@iiasa.ac.atmaria.rita.testa@wu.ac.at

THANK YOU!

Background• Significant social changes during the past decades inAustria‐ Secularization (Goujon et al. 2007)‐ Fertility decline among Catholic population‐ Rise in migration with higher fertility among immigrants‐ Increase in religious diversification (Goujon & Bauer 2014)

• Decline in religious homogamy among Catholics andProtestants (Lutz 1985)

Figure 10: % distribution of children’s religion by father’s and mother’s religion and partnership type

Children’s religious affiliation

41.820.4

6.0

57.3 77.2

53.25.3 2.8

5.017.0 14.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

both parents only mother only father

Parent(s) with no religion

99.682.0

63.4

0.214.9

32.3

2.0 2.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

both parents only mother only father

Catholic parent(s) 96.7

49.0

31.5

44.4

62.9

2.51.6 2.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

bothparents

onlymother

only father

Protestant parent(s)  No religion(neitherparents haveno religion)No religion(one parent hasno religion)

Other religion

Catholic(neitherparents areCatholic)Catholic (oneparent isCatholic)

Same asparent(s)

Figure 10: (continued)

Children’s religious affiliation

94.9

23.217.3

3.726.0

1.5

4.9

1.9

3.4

40.2

29.8

22.0 17.3

6.1 7.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

both parents only mother only father

Jewish parent(s) 

98.7

42.633.3

21.030.2

2.8 2.4

0.8

17.5 14.0

7.97.1

8.1 12.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

bothparents

only mother only father

Muslim parent(s) No religion(neither parentshave noreligion)No religion (oneparent has noreligion)

Other religion

Catholic (neitherparents areCatholic)

Catholic (oneparent isCatholic)

Same asparent(s)