Misplaced Pages

Religiosity: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:20, 13 March 2017 editI dream of horses (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers572,256 editsm Typo fixing, typo(s) fixed: Demographical → Demographic using AWB← Previous edit Revision as of 10:28, 14 April 2017 edit undo122.59.216.93 (talk) Components: Fixed typoTags: canned edit summary Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 29: Line 29:


==Components== ==Components==
Numerous studies have explored the different components of human religiosity (Brink, 1993; Hill & Hood 1999). What most have found is that there are multiple dimensions (they often employ ]). For instance, Cornwall, Albrecht, Cunningham and Pitcher (1986) identify six dimensions of religiosity based on the understanding that there are at least three components to religious behavior: knowing (cognition in the mind), feeling (affect to the spirit), and doing (behavior of the body). For each of these components of religiosity there were two cross classifications resulting in the six dimensions:<ref>{{cite journal|last=Cornwall |author2=Albrecht |author3=Cunningham |author4=Pitcher |title=The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an Empirical Test|journal=Review of Religious Research|year=1986|volume=27|issue=3|pages=226–244|doi=10.2307/3511418}}</ref> Numerous studies have explored the different components of human religiosity (Brink, 1993; Hill & Hood 1999). What most have found is that there are multiple dimensions (they often employ ]). For instance, Cornwall, Albrecht, Cunningham and Pitcher (1986) identify six dimensions of religiosity based on the understanding that there are at least three components to religious behavior: knowing (cognition in the mind), feeling (effect to the spirit), and doing (behavior of the body). For each of these components of religiosity there were two cross classifications resulting in the six dimensions:<ref>{{cite journal|last=Cornwall |author2=Albrecht |author3=Cunningham |author4=Pitcher |title=The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an Empirical Test|journal=Review of Religious Research|year=1986|volume=27|issue=3|pages=226–244|doi=10.2307/3511418}}</ref>
*Cognition *Cognition
**traditional ] **traditional ]
**particularistic orthodoxy **particularistic orthodoxy
*Effect
*Affect
**Palpable **Palpable
**Tangible **Tangible

Revision as of 10:28, 14 April 2017

Results of a 2008/2009 Gallup poll on whether respondents said that religion was "important in daily life."
  90%-100%   80%-89%   70%-79%   60%-69%   50%-59%   40%-49%   30%-39%   20%-29%   10%-19%   0%-9%   No data

Religiosity, in its broadest sense, is a comprehensive term used to refer to the numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief (religious doctrine). Another term less often used is "religiousness". In its narrowest sense, religiosity deals more with how religious a person is, and less with how a person is religious (in practicing certain rituals, retelling certain stories, revering certain symbols, or accepting certain doctrines about deities and afterlife).

Diversity in an individuals' beliefs, affiliations, and behaviors

Decades of anthropological, sociological, and psychological research have established that "religious congruence" (the assumption that religious beliefs and values are tightly integrated in an individual's mind or that religious practices and behaviors follow directly from religious beliefs or that religious beliefs are chronologically linear and stable across different contexts) is actually rare. People’s religious ideas, are fragmented, loosely connected, and context dependent; like in all other domains of culture and in life. The beliefs, affiliations, and behaviors of any individual are complex activities that have many sources including culture. As examples of religious incongruence he notes, "Observant Jews may not believe what they say in their Sabbath prayers. Christian ministers may not believe in God. And people who regularly dance for rain don’t do it in the dry season."

Demographical Data

Demographic studies often show wide diversity of religious beliefs, belonging, and practices in both religious and non-religious populations. For instance, out of Americans who are not religious and not seeking religion: 68% believe in God, 12% are atheists, 17% are agnostics; also, in terms of self-identification of religiosity 18% consider themselves religious, 37% consider themselves as spiritual but not religious, and 42% considers themselves as neither spiritual nor religious; and 21% pray every day and 24% pray once a month. Global studies on religion also show diversity.

Components

Numerous studies have explored the different components of human religiosity (Brink, 1993; Hill & Hood 1999). What most have found is that there are multiple dimensions (they often employ factor analysis). For instance, Cornwall, Albrecht, Cunningham and Pitcher (1986) identify six dimensions of religiosity based on the understanding that there are at least three components to religious behavior: knowing (cognition in the mind), feeling (effect to the spirit), and doing (behavior of the body). For each of these components of religiosity there were two cross classifications resulting in the six dimensions:

  • Cognition
    • traditional orthodoxy
    • particularistic orthodoxy
  • Effect
    • Palpable
    • Tangible
  • Behavior
    • religious behavior
    • religious participation

Other researchers have found different dimensions, ranging generally from four to twelve components. What most measures of religiosity find is that there is at least some distinction between religious doctrine, religious practice, and spirituality.

For example, one can accept the truthfulness of the Bible (belief dimension), but never attend a church or even belong to an organized religion (practice dimension). Another example is an individual who does not hold orthodox Christian doctrines (belief dimension), but does attend a charismatic worship service (practice dimension) in order to develop his/her sense of oneness with the divine (spirituality dimension).

An individual could disavow all doctrines associated with organized religions (belief dimension), not affiliate with an organized religion or attend religious services (practice dimension), and at the same time be strongly committed to a higher power and feel that the connection with that higher power is ultimately relevant (spirituality dimension). These are explanatory examples of the broadest dimensions of religiosity and that they may not be reflected in specific religiosity measures.

Most dimensions of religiosity are correlated, meaning people who often attend church services (practice dimension) are also likely to score highly on the belief and spirituality dimensions. But individuals do not have to score high on all dimensions or low on all dimensions; their scores can vary by dimension.

Sociologists have differed over the exact number of components of religiosity. Charles Glock's five-dimensional approach (Glock, 1972: 39) was among the first of its kind in the field of sociology of religion. Other sociologists adapted Glock's list to include additional components (see for example, a six component measure by Mervin F. Verbit).

Contributions

Genes and environment

National welfare spending vs church attendance in Christian societies.

The contributions of genes and environment to religiosity have been quantified in studies of twins (Bouchard et al., 1999; Kirk et al., 1999) and sociological studies of welfare, availability, and legal regulations (state religions, etc.).

Koenig et al. (2005) report that the contribution of genes to variation in religiosity (called heritability) increases from 12% to 44% and the contribution of shared (family) effects decreases from 56% to 18% between adolescence and adulthood.

A market-based theory of religious choice and governmental regulation of religion have been the dominant theories used to explain variations of religiosity between societies. However, Gill and Lundsgaarde (2004) documented a much stronger correlation between welfare state spending and religiosity. See "Welfare spending vs Church attendance" diagram on the right.

Intelligence levels

Main article: Religiosity and intelligence

A meta-analysis found a correlation of -.24 between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity for western societies. The correlation was suggested to be a result of nonconformity, more cognitive and less intuitive thinking styles among the less religious, and less of a need for religion as a coping mechanism. The study noted limitations on the results such as not considering of the role of religion type and of culture in assessing the relationship.

Just-world hypothesis

Studies have found belief in a just world to be correlated with aspects of religiousness.

Risk-aversion

Several studies have discovered a positive correlation between the degree of religiousness and Risk aversion

See also

Demographics:

References

  1. Crabtree, Steve. "Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations". Gallup. Retrieved 27 May 2015. (in which numbers have been rounded)
  2. GALLUP WorldView - data accessed on 17 january 2009
  3. Holdcroft, Barbara (September 2006). "What is Religiosity?". Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. 10 (1): 89–103.
  4. Chaves, Mark (March 2010). "SSSR Presidential Address Rain Dances in the Dry Season: Overcoming the Religious Congruence Fallacy". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 49 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01489.x.
  5. "American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population" (PDF). American Religious Identification Survey. 2008. Retrieved 2014-01-30.
  6. "Religion and the Unaffiliated". "Nones" on the Rise. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. October 9, 2012.
  7. "Most of the Religiously Unaffiliated Still Keep Belief in God". Pew Research Center. November 15, 2012.
  8. "The Global Religious Landscape". Pew Research Center.
  9. Cornwall; Albrecht; Cunningham; Pitcher (1986). "The Dimensions of Religiosity: A Conceptual Model with an Empirical Test". Review of Religious Research. 27 (3): 226–244. doi:10.2307/3511418.
  10. Glock, C. Y. (1972) ‘On the Study of Religious Commitment’ in J. E. Faulkner (ed.) Religion’s Influence in Contemporary Society, Readings in the Sociology of Religion, Ohio: Charles E. Merril: 38-56.
  11. Verbit, M. F. (1970). The components and dimensions of religious behavior: Toward a reconceptualization of religiosity. American mosaic, 24, 39.
  12. Küçükcan, T. (2010). Multidimensional Approach to Religion: a way of looking at religious phenomena. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 4(10), 60-70.
  13. http://www.eskieserler.com/dosyalar/mpdf%20(1135).pdf
  14. Nolan, P., & Lenski, G. E. (2010). Human societies: Introduction to macrosociology. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publisher.
  15. L. B. Koenig, M. McGue, R. F. Krueger and T. J. Bouchard, Jr. (2005). Genetic and environmental influences on religiousness: findings for retrospective and current religiousness ratings. Journal of Personality, 73, 471-88
  16. Gill, Anthony; Erik Lundsgaarde (2004). "State Welfare Spending and Religiosity". Comparative Political Studies. 16 (4): 399–436. doi:10.1177/1043463104046694. Free PDF
  17. Akshat Rathi, New meta-analysis checks the correlation between intelligence and faith, Ars Technica, 11 August 2013.
  18. Begue, L. (2002). Beliefs in justice and faith in people: just world, religiosity and interpersonal trust. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 375-382.
  19. Kurst, J., Bjorck, J., & Tan, S. (2000). Causal attributions for uncontrollable negative events. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19, 47–60.
  20. Noussair, Charles; Stefan T. Trautmann; Gijs van de Kuilen; Nathanael Vellekoop (2013). "Risk aversion and religion". Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 47 (2): 165–183. doi:10.1007/s11166-013-9174-8..
  21. Adhikari, Binay; Anup Agrawal (2016). "Does local religiosity matter for bank risk-taking?". Journal of Corporate Finance. 38: 272–293. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.01.009..

External links

  • Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M, Lykken D, Tellegen A. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: genetic and environmental influences and personality correlates. Twin Res. 1999 Jun;2(2):88-98.
  • Brink, T.L. 1993. Religiosity: measurement. in Survey of Social Science: Psychology, Frank N. Magill, Ed., Pasadena, CA: Salem Press, 1993, pp. 2096–2102.
  • Cornwall, M., Albrecht, S.L., Cunningham, P.H., and Pitcher, B.L. 1986. The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual model with an empirical test. Review of Religious Research, 27:226-244.
  • Hill, Peter C. and Hood, Ralph W. Jr. 1999. Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press. ISBN 0-89135-106-X
  • Kirk KM, Eaves LJ, Martin NG. Self-transcendence as a measure of spirituality in a sample of older Australian twins. Twin Res. 1999 Jun;2(2):81-7. PMID 10480742
  • Winter T. Kaprio J, Viken RJ, Karvonen S, Rose RJ. Individual differences in adolescent religiosity in Finland: familial effects are modified by sex and region of residence. Twin Res. 1999 Jun;2(2):108-14. PMID 10480745
Categories: