Binge drinking and Mainline Protestant adherents
Where Binge drinking is higher, Mainline Protestant adherents tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.38 across 2,934 counties, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). That figure compares places with the same population density, income and education, so those differences can't explain it. It holds inside states too. Measured separately within each of 38 states, the middle value of the link is +0.18.
Holds after adjusting
Every place, plotted
One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.
Loading every place…
What each measure is
Binge drinking
The estimated percentage of adults who report binge drinking (several drinks at one time) in the past month. It is adjusted so places with older or younger populations can be compared fairly. It is an estimate from a statistical model, not a direct count from a local survey.
CDC PLACES · PLACES BINGE, age-adjusted
Mainline Protestant adherents
Members of mainline Protestant churches, such as United Methodist, Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran, as a share of the population.
· Religion Census MPRTRATE (2010, 2020)
Highest and lowest
Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.
Counties
By binge drinking
| Binge drinking | Mainline Protestant adherents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Lyon County, IA | 26.3% | 36.1 |
| Denver County, CO | 24.4% | 3.75 |
| Gage County, NE | 24.3% | 32.8 |
| Garfield County, NE | 24.3% | 32.3 |
| Butler County, IA | 24.2% | 36.2 |
| Lowest | ||
| Utah County, UT | 8.2% | 0.04 |
| San Juan County, UT | 10.3% | 1.22 |
| Davis County, UT | 10.5% | 0.14 |
| Humphreys County, MS | 10.6% | 5.24 |
| Holmes County, MS | 10.6% | 7.19 |
By mainline Protestant adherents
| Binge drinking | Mainline Protestant adherents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Nelson County, ND | 23% | 69.5 |
| Burke County, ND | 23.3% | 66.8 |
| Renville County, ND | 23.5% | 65.3 |
| Steele County, ND | 23% | 59.6 |
| Lac qui Parle County, MN | 21.5% | 57 |
| Lowest | ||
| Costilla County, CO | 16.7% | 0 |
| Alpine County, CA | 20% | 0 |
| Skagway Municipality, AK | 19.7% | 0 |
| Lake and Peninsula Borough, AK | 17% | 0 |
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 15.3% | 0 |
States — Binge drinking is not published for states
By mainline Protestant adherents
| Binge drinking | Mainline Protestant adherents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| North Dakota | — | 21 |
| South Dakota | — | 17.9 |
| Iowa | — | 15.7 |
| Minnesota | — | 13.6 |
| West Virginia | — | 12.2 |
| Lowest | ||
| Utah | — | 0.48 |
| Nevada | — | 1.05 |
| California | — | 1.4 |
| Arizona | — | 1.61 |
| Oregon | — | 2.15 |
Metro areas
By binge drinking
| Binge drinking | Mainline Protestant adherents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Beatrice, NE | 24.3% | 32.8 |
| Missoula, MT | 24% | 3.02 |
| Le Mars, IA | 23.7% | 22.9 |
| Williston, ND | 23.7% | 13 |
| Jamestown, ND | 23.4% | 24.6 |
| Lowest | ||
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 8.28% | 0.0437 |
| Clarksdale, MS | 10.9% | 3.89 |
| Ogden, UT | 11% | 0.316 |
| Greenville, MS | 11.1% | 4.77 |
| Logan, UT-ID | 11.3% | 0.393 |
By mainline Protestant adherents
| Binge drinking | Mainline Protestant adherents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Albert Lea, MN | 21.1% | 38.4 |
| Red Wing, MN | 20.9% | 35 |
| Willmar, MN | 19.6% | 34.1 |
| Pella, IA | 23.3% | 33 |
| Beatrice, NE | 24.3% | 32.8 |
| Lowest | ||
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 8.28% | 0.0437 |
| Rexburg, ID | 13.7% | 0.18 |
| Laredo, TX | 15.7% | 0.27 |
| Gallup, NM | 12.7% | 0.3 |
| Ogden, UT | 11% | 0.316 |
Cities and towns — Mainline Protestant adherents is not published for cities and towns
By binge drinking
| Binge drinking | Mainline Protestant adherents | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| James Island town, SC | 25.4% | — |
| Mount Pleasant town, SC | 25.4% | — |
| Eldridge city, IA | 25.2% | — |
| Delafield city, WI | 24.8% | — |
| Muskego city, WI | 24.5% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Provo city, UT | 7.4% | — |
| Orem city, UT | 7.9% | — |
| Vineyard town, UT | 8.1% | — |
| Springville city, UT | 8.1% | — |
| Payson city, UT | 8.2% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,956 counties: the five with far more mainline Protestant adherents than their binge drinking would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Binge drinking | Mainline Protestant adherents | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Nelson County, ND | 23% | 69.5 |
| Burke County, ND | 23.3% | 66.8 |
| Renville County, ND | 23.5% | 65.3 |
| Kittson County, MN | 20.9% | 57 |
| Steele County, ND | 23% | 59.6 |
| Below the line | ||
| Loup County, NE | 23.6% | 0 |
| Logan County, NE | 22.8% | 0 |
| Powell County, MT | 23.4% | 1.37 |
| Arthur County, NE | 22.2% | 0 |
| Daniels County, MT | 23.1% | 1.32 |
Two series, one county
Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.
Loading…
Every version of the link
Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.
| Before adjusting for anything | +0.429 | 2,934 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.382 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.373 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.111 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | +0.229 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 264 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.184 | the link worked out inside each of 38 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.309 | uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link |
How much to believe it
Could it be chance?
The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 2.9e-102. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 0.000. The site tested 20,910 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 2.4e-101.
Do nearby places look alike?
Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.53 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.
Did they change together?
Not measurable: at least one of these is published for too few of the years a change needs (2014–2019 or 2019–2023), or for too few counties in both.
Related pairs
- Binge drinking and Returns claiming the earned income credit — -0.58
- Binge drinking and Returns reporting capital gains — +0.54
- Membership organisations and Mainline Protestant adherents — +0.54
- Binge drinking and Economic connectedness — +0.53
- Mainline Protestant adherents and Social connection score — +0.53
- Binge drinking and Material security score — +0.52
- Binge drinking and Adult income rank of children raised poor here — +0.51
- Binge drinking and Returns claiming charitable contributions — -0.50
Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Binge drinking and Mainline Protestant adherents