Leonardo Becchetti is one of the most lively personalities in the Italian economic debate. Trained at the London School of Economics, he has conducted studies on sustainability and energy communities, social capital and welfare indicators, CSR and ‘vote with your wallet’.
He is the director of the “Festival dell’Economia Civile”, writes on national Italian newspapers such as Avvenire and Il Sole 24 Ore, founded the magazine Next (Nuova Economia per Tutti) and a sustainable e-commerce portal.

In his latest work, published in the International Review of Economics, he did something surprising: by aggregating data from eight surveys conducted over 16 years in 39 European countries, with more than 370,000 people interviewed, he asked whether there is a correlation between religiosity and happiness.

‘Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things will be given you in addition,’ the Gospel promises: are these just fine words, or is there a fund of truth that data can confirm?

1. Professor Becchetti, I would first like to ask you which indicators you chose for your research. How did you define how ‘religious’ a person is and how ‘happy’ they feel?

These are the questions contained in the European Social Survey, which is the main survey used by scholars for cross-country empirical studies in the social sciences. The survey now has had 11 editions (ran approximately every two years) and is administered to representative samples in 38 European countries plus Israel.
There are three questions used in the study:

I) “How religious are you?” on a scale of 0 to 10.

II) “How often do you pray outside of religious services?” on the following intensity scale: every day, more than once a week, once a week, at least once a month, only on religious holidays, never.

III)“How often do you attend religious services apart from special occasions?” on the following intensity scale: every day, more than once a week, once a week, at least once a month, only on religious holidays, never.

By ‘happiness’ we always mean its cognitive measure, i.e. life satisfaction.

2. “He who hears my words but does not put them into practice is like a man who built his house on sand”, says the Gospel of Matthew. Among my Millennial peers an experience is common: those who have a very active religious life feel fulfilled, while those who have only a mental faith feel uncomfortable and end up finding atheism preferable.
Does your data record this phenomenon?

Yes. A singular fact that we did not expect is the non-linear effect of religiosity (the first question) compared to the linear and positive effect of the frequency of prayer and participation in religious services (the second and third questions). Those who declare themselves very religious are happier than those who declare themselves atheist, but those who declare themselves religious by choosing low scores (between 2 and 4) are less happy than those who are atheist.

Very appropriate to interpret this as a ‘house in the sand’ effect. Having thought of it earlier would have made the interpretation more appealing.

The “house on the rock” and the “house on the sand”: those who consider themselves very religious (5<) are likely to feel very fulfilled, while those who consider themselves few religious (2-4) are likely to feel more dissatisfied than atheists (>2).
Elaborated by E. Pinelli on data from L. Becchetti, “Happiness, religiosity and rationality: going deeper into
the utility function” (2025)

“Ask and you shall receive”: the correlation between how much one prays and how fulfilled one is likely to feel is almost linear.
Elaboration by E. Pinelli on data from L. Becchetti, ‘Happiness, religiosity and rationality: going deeper into
the utility function’ (2025)

“Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice”: the correlation between how much one attends church services and how fulfilled one is likely to feel is fully linear.
Elaboration by E. Pinelli on data from L. Becchetti, ‘Happiness, religiosity and rationality: going deeper into
the utility function’ (2025)

3. Among the explanations you give for why active Christians are so satisfied with their lives are greater sociality and greater trust in others.

There are, of course, many ways to build sociality and trust, we would miss it. What the study simply finds is that religious practice increases sociality and trust. And this is understandable if we think of the characteristics of the religious message, which is based on mutual love, thus on a ‘training’ of pro-social attitudes.
Since the study takes place in Europe, the religion we are talking about is mainly Christian in its Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox declinations.

4. What is the Tertullian-effect? Is it true that where believers decrease, non-believers also become more dissatisfied?

Tertullian was an apologist who, at the time of the early persecution of Christians, endeavoured to convince the Romans and the emperor that Christians were good citizens. We tested this proposition by seeing whether the share of believers (and the average intensity of our three variables) at the regional level affected the life satisfaction of non-believers in the same region, and found the result to be significant and positive.
The interpretation is that having more pro-social people around us, oriented towards trust and cooperation, is beneficial for everyone.

6. There are four countries in contrast, where the most religious people tend to feel unhappy: Romania, Slovakia, Greece and Denmark. I explain it this way: perhaps they are countries with a strong national church, where faith is linked to ethnic identity and sometimes even to retrograde political positions. This could frustrate those believers who do not agree on these aspects. What do you think about this?

It is a bit difficult to try to explain everything in detail. Among those four countries there is also Denmark, which is the opposite. And then if we look at the other two variables (frequency of prayer and attending to religious services) the sign is the same for all countries. The figure is therefore more about self-declared religiosity, devoid of the other two elements.

5. What lessons can economists draw from this close link between religious practice and satisfaction? After all, all political economy takes its starting point from the utility function, i.e. how much we are willing to spend to feel satisfied by a combination of goods.

With civil economics, we have been explaining for years that while the method (constrained maximisation, i.e. choosing the best means to achieve one’s ends) is correct and rational, what is usually put into the utility function is very limited in almost all models.
The focus is on the consumer, but the most important things for life satisfaction are not only those we put in the shopping basket.

With the more than 300 economists who have signed the manifesto for the economic renaissance, we have outlined, on the basis of this and many other empirical findings, the figure of homo integralis, whose life satisfaction and richness of meaning depend on five main elements: quality of life and relationships, meaning and purpose, generativity (one’s own social and environmental impact), connections and self-transcendence.

These are the most important things, which then also direct purchasing and consumption choices and explain, for example, why a football fan from Rome goes to see a match at the Olympic stadium even though he can see it much better on TV at home, or why young people go to Irama’s concert and get excited about his song ‘Ovunque sarai‘, which speaks of the human desire for self-transcendence.

And the variable of the meaning of life (meaning and purpose) in my opinion is the main explanation for my result.
Man is a seeker of meaning, and religion (whether believer or not) is a complete answer to the question of meaning (where we come from, where we are going) including the less pleasant parts of our existence (pain and death).