Religiosity

Last updated

The Oxford English Dictionary defines religiosity as: "Religiousness; religious feeling or belief. [...] Affected or excessive religiousness". [1] Different scholars have seen this concept as broadly about religious orientations and degrees of involvement or commitment. [2] Religiosity is measured at the levels of individuals or groups and there is a lack of agreement on what criteria would constitute religiosity among scholars. [2] Sociologists of religion have observed that an individual's experience, beliefs, sense of belonging, and behavior often are not congruent with their actual religious behavior, since there is much diversity in how one can be religious or not. [3] Multiple problems exist in measuring religiosity. For instance, measures of variables such as church attendance produce different results when different methods are used - such as traditional surveys vs time-use surveys. [4]

Contents

Measuring religion

Inaccuracy of polling and identification

The reliability of any poll results, in general and specifically on religion, can be questioned due numerous factors such as: [5]

The measurement of religiosity is hampered by the difficulties involved in defining what is meant by the term and the variables it entails. Numerous studies have explored the different components of religiosity, with most finding some distinction between religious beliefs/doctrine, religious practice, and spirituality. When religiosity is measured, it is important to specify which aspects of religiosity are referred to. [6]

Researchers also note that an estimated 20-40% of the population changes their self-reported religious affiliation/identity over time due to numerous factors and that usually it is their answers on surveys that change, not necessarily their religious practices or beliefs. [7]

Two major surveys in the United States (General Social Survey and Cooperative Congressional Election Study) consistently have discrepancies between their demographic estimates that amount to 8% and growing. This is due to a few factors such as each one asking questions differently and, thus, impacting how respondents answer their questions due "social desirability bias"; the lumping of very different groups (atheist, agnostics, nothing in particular) into singular categories (e.g. "no religion" vs "nothing in particular"); and imbalance of representative respondents (e.g. GSS sample of nones is more politically moderate than the nones in the CCES, while simultaneously the Protestant sample in the CCES is further to the right of the political spectrum). [8]

The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) found a difference between how people identify and what people believe. While only 0.7% of U.S. adults identified as atheist, 2.3% said there is no such thing as a god. Only 0.9% identified as agnostic, but 10.0% said there is either no way to know if a god exists or they weren't sure. Another 12.1% said there is a higher power but no personal god. In total, only 15.0% identified as Nones or No Religion, but 24.4% did not believe in the traditional concept of a personal god. The conductors of the study concluded, "The historic reluctance of Americans to self-identify in this manner or use these terms seems to have diminished. Nevertheless ... the level of under-reporting of these theological labels is still significant ... many millions do not subscribe fully to the theology of the groups with which they identify." [9]

According to a Pew study in 2009, only 5% of the total US population did not have a belief in a god. Out of all those without a belief in a god, only 24% self-identified as "atheist", while 15% self-identified as "agnostic", 35% self-identified as "nothing in particular", and 24% identified with a religious tradition. [10]

According to a Gallup's editor in chief, Frank Newport, numbers on surveys may not be the whole story. In his view, declines in religious affiliation or declines in belief in God on surveys may not actually reflect an actual decline in these beliefs among people since increased honesty on spiritual matters to interviewers may merely be increasing since people may feel more comfortable today expressing viewpoints that were previously deviant. [11]

Diversity in an individual's 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." [3]

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. [12] [13] [14] Global studies on religion also show diversity. [15]

Results of a 2008/2009 Gallup poll on whether respondents said that religion was "important in [their] daily life." .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} 90%-100% 80%-89% 70%-79% 60%-69% 50%-59% 40%-49% 30%-39% 20%-29% 10%-19% 0%-9% No data Importance of Religion in the World (Gallup Poll 2008-2009).svg
Results of a 2008/2009 Gallup poll on whether respondents said that religion was "important in [their] daily life."
  90%-100%
  80%-89%
  70%-79%
  60%-69%
  50%-59%
  40%-49%
  30%-39%
  20%-29%
  10%-19%
  0%-9%
  No data

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: [18]

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[ original research? ], 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 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. [19] Other sociologists adapted Glock's list to include additional components (see for example, a six component measure by Mervin F. Verbit). [20] [21] [22]

Other factors

Genes and environment

National welfare spending vs church attendance in Christian societies Church Attendance and Welfare Spending Graph.png
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 [24] (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. [25]

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[ clarification needed ]. However, Gill and Lundsgaarde (2004) [23] documented a much stronger correlation between welfare state spending and religiosity. (see diagram)

Just-world hypothesis

Studies have found belief in a just world to be correlated with aspects of religiousness. [26] [27]

Risk-aversion

Several studies have discovered a positive correlation between the degree of religiousness and risk aversion. [28] [29]

See also

Demographics:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of religion</span> Branch of sociology

Sociology of religion is the study of the beliefs, practices and organizational forms of religion using the tools and methods of the discipline of sociology. This objective investigation may include the use both of quantitative methods and of qualitative approaches.

The meaning of spirituality has developed and expanded over time, and various meanings can be found alongside each other. Traditionally, spirituality referred to a religious process of re-formation which "aims to recover the original shape of man", oriented at "the image of God" as exemplified by the founders and sacred texts of the religions of the world. The term was used within early Christianity to refer to a life oriented toward the Holy Spirit and broadened during the Late Middle Ages to include mental aspects of life.

Irreligion is the neglect or active rejection of religion and, depending on the definition, a simple absence of religion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychology of religion</span> Application of psychological methods to the contents of religious traditions

Psychology of religion consists of the application of psychological methods and interpretive frameworks to the diverse contents of religious traditions as well as to both religious and irreligious individuals. The various methods and frameworks can be summarized according to the classic distinction between the natural-scientific and human-scientific approaches. The first cluster amounts to objective, quantitative, and preferably experimental procedures for testing hypotheses about causal connections among the objects of one's study. In contrast, the human-scientific approach accesses the human world of experience using qualitative, phenomenological, and interpretive methods. This approach aims to discern meaningful, rather than causal, connections among the phenomena one seeks to understand.

Most Americans consider themselves religious or spiritual in some way, while Christianity is the most widely professed religion in the country. However, the majority of Americans do not regularly attend religious services and have low confidence in religious institutions, with the country rapidly secularizing since the 1990s. A 2023 The Wall Street Journal-NORC poll found that 17% of Americans identify as "very religious", 31% "moderately religious", 23% "slightly religious", and 29% "not religious at all". According to the 2017 World Values Survey, the U.S. is more secular than the median country. A large variety of faiths have historically flourished within the country. According to Gallup, 45% reporting praying on a daily basis and 46% and 26% reporting that religion plays a very important and fairly important role, respectively, in their lives.

The study of religiosity and intelligence explores the link between religiosity and intelligence or educational level. Religiosity and intelligence are both complex topics that include diverse variables, and the interactions among those variables are not always well understood. For instance, intelligence is often defined differently by different researchers; also, all scores from intelligence tests are only estimates of intelligence, because one cannot achieve concrete measurements of intelligence due to the concept’s abstract nature. Religiosity is also complex, in that it involves wide variations of interactions of religious beliefs, practices, behaviors, and affiliations, across a diverse array of cultures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural Muslims</span> Non-practicing Muslims who still identify with Islam

Cultural Muslims or nominal Muslims or non-practising/observing Muslims are religiously non-practicing or secular or irreligious individuals who still identify with Islam due to family backgrounds, personal experiences, ethnic and national heritage, or the social and cultural environment in which they grew up. The concept of a cultural Muslim – someone who identifies as a Muslim yet is not religious – is not always met with acceptance in conservative Islamic communities.

Some movements or sects within traditionally monotheistic or polytheistic religions recognize that it is possible to practice religious faith, spirituality and adherence to tenets without a belief in deities. People with what would be considered religious or spiritual belief in a supernatural controlling power are defined by some as adherents to a religion; the argument that atheism is a religion has been described as a contradiction in terms.

Accurate demographics of atheism are difficult to obtain since conceptions of atheism vary considerably across different cultures and languages, ranging from an active concept to being unimportant or not developed. Also in some countries and regions atheism carries a strong stigma, making it harder to count atheists in these countries. In global studies, the number of people without a religion is usually higher than the number of people without a belief in a deity and the number of people who agree with statements on lacking a belief in a deity is usually higher than the number of people who self-identify as "atheists".

In the United States, between 6% and 15% of citizens demonstrated nonreligious attitudes and naturalistic worldviews, namely atheists or agnostics. The number of self-identified atheists and agnostics was around 4% each, while many persons formally affiliated with a religion are likewise non-believing.

<i>Hiloni</i> Least religious Jews in Israel

Hiloni, plural hilonim, is a social category in Israel, designating the least religious segment among the Jewish public. The other three subgroups on the scale of Jewish-Israeli religiosity are the masortim, "traditional"; datiim, "religious"; and haredim, "ultra-religious" ("ultra-Orthodox"). In the 2018 Israel Central Bureau of Statistics' survey, 43.2% of Jews identified as hiloni.

"Spiritual but not religious" (SBNR), also known as "spiritual but not affiliated" (SBNA), or less commonly "more spiritual than religious" is a popular phrase and initialism used to self-identify a life stance of spirituality that does not regard organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth. Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion, but in contemporary usage spirituality has often become associated with the interior life of the individual, placing an emphasis upon the well-being of the "mind-body-spirit", while religion refers to organizational or communal dimensions. Spirituality sometimes denotes noninstitutionalized or individualized religiosity. The interactions are complex since even conservative Christians designate themselves as "spiritual but not religious" to indicate a form of non-ritualistic personal faith.

Scholarly studies have investigated the effects of religion on health. The World Health Organization (WHO) discerns four dimensions of health, namely physical, social, mental, and spiritual health. Having a religious belief may have both positive and negative impacts on health and morbidity.

Most scientists agree that religiosity is not an independent personality trait, despite there being some commonality between their characteristics. Religiosity and personality traits both relate to one's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. However, unlike for personality, one's level of religiosity is often measured by the presence or lack of belief in and relationship with a higher power, certain lifestyles or behaviors adopted for a higher power, and a sense of belonging with other followers of one's religion. Additionally, personality traits tend to follow a normal distribution, such that the majority of individuals' scores for a personality trait will be concentrated towards the middle, rather than being extremely high or low. Distributions for religiosity, however, follow a non-normal distribution, such that there are more individuals who score particularly high or low on religiosity scales.

The relationship between the level of religiosity and the level of education has been studied since the second half of the 20th century.

Charles Young Glock was an American sociologist whose work focuses on sociology of religion and survey research.

Sociologists of religion have stated that religious behaviour may have a concrete impact on a person's life. These consequences of religiosity are thought to include emotional and physical health, spiritual well-being, personal, marital, and family happiness. Although a simple correlation between religiosity and well-being is repeatedly reported in the research literature, recent multivariate research suggests religiosity's contribution to happiness is minuscule and sometimes negative.

Spirituality affects both mental and physical health outcomes in the general United States population across different ethnic groups. Because of the nuanced definitions of spirituality and religiosity, the literature on spirituality is not consistent in definitions or measures resulting in a lack of coherence. However, taken as a whole, research tends to show that the effect of spirituality is positive, associated with better health outcomes. For those who engage in spirituality, it may serve as a buffer from negative life events, often moderating the relationship between negative life experiences and levels of anxiety or depression. The exception is when negative spiritual coping is practiced. This type of coping has negative health implications.

References

  1. ↑ "religiosity" . Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.). The earliest recorded usage of the former meaning is from 1382 Wycliffe's Bible, and of the latter is from 1799 by William Taylor quoted in John Warden Robberds' 1843 Memoir.
  2. 1 2 Holdcroft, Barbara (September 2006). "What is Religiosity?". Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. 10 (1): 89–103.
  3. 1 2 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.
  4. ↑ Rossi, Maurizio; Scappini, Ettore (June 2014). "Church Attendance, Problems of Measurement, and Interpreting Indicators: A Study of Religious Practice in the United States, 1975-2010". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 53 (2): 249–267. doi:10.1111/jssr.12115. ISSN   0021-8294.
  5. ↑ Wuthnow, Robert (2015). "8. Taking Stock". Inventing American Religion: Polls Surveys, and the Tenuous Quest for a Nation's Faith. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780190258900.
  6. ↑ Holdcroft, Barbara (September 2006). "What is Religiosity?". Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. 10 (1): 89–103.
  7. ↑ Johnson, Byron; Stark, Rodney; Bradshaw, Matt; Levin, Jeff (2022). "Are Religious "Nones" Really Not Religious?: Revisiting Glenn, Three Decades Later". Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. 18 (7).
  8. ↑ Burge, Ryan P. (March 2020). "How Many "Nones" Are There? Explaining the Discrepancies in Survey Estimates". Review of Religious Research. 62 (1): 173–190. doi:10.1007/s13644-020-00400-7.
  9. ↑ Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 7, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link), March 2009, American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS 2008], Trinity College.
  10. ↑ "Not All Nonbelievers Call Themselves Atheists | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project". Pewforum.org. 2009-04-02. Retrieved 2014-02-27.
  11. ↑ "See How Americans' Belief in God Has Changed Over 70 Years". Time. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
  12. ↑ "American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population" (PDF). American Religious Identification Survey. 2008. Retrieved 2014-01-30.
  13. ↑ "Religion and the Unaffiliated". "Nones" on the Rise. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. October 9, 2012.
  14. ↑ "Most of the Religiously Unaffiliated Still Keep Belief in God". Pew Research Center. November 15, 2012.
  15. ↑ "The Global Religious Landscape". Pew Research Center. 2012-12-18.
  16. ↑ Crabtree, Steve (31 August 2010). "Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations". Gallup. Retrieved 27 May 2015. (in which numbers have been rounded)
  17. ↑ GALLUP WorldView - data accessed on 17 January 2009
  18. ↑ 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. JSTOR   3511418.
  19. ↑ 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.
  20. ↑ Verbit, M. F. (1970). "The components and dimensions of religious behavior: Toward a reconceptualization of religiosity". American Mosaic. 24: 39.
  21. ↑ Küçükcan, T (2005). "Multidimensional Approach to Religion: a way of looking at religious phenomena". Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies. 4 (10): 60–70.
  22. ↑ http://www.eskieserler.com/dosyalar/mpdf%20(1135).pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  23. 1 2 Gill, Anthony; Erik Lundsgaarde (2004). "State Welfare Spending and Religiosity" (PDF). Comparative Political Studies. 16 (4): 399–436. doi:10.1177/1043463104046694. S2CID   145609214.
  24. ↑ Nolan, P., & Lenski, G. E. (2010). Human societies: Introduction to macrosociology. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publisher.
  25. ↑ Koenig, L. B.; McGue, M.; Krueger, R. F.; Bouchard Jr, T. J. (2005). "Genetic and environmental influences on religiousness: findings for retrospective and current religiousness ratings". Journal of Personality. 73 (2): 471–488. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00316.x. PMID   15745438.
  26. ↑ Begue, L (2002). "Beliefs in justice and faith in people: just world, religiosity and interpersonal trust". Personality and Individual Differences. 32 (3): 375–382. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00224-5.
  27. ↑ Kurst, J.; Bjorck, J.; Tan, S. (2000). "Causal attributions for uncontrollable negative events". Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 19: 47–60.
  28. ↑ Noussair, Charles; Stefan T. Trautmann; Gijs van de Kuilen; Nathanael Vellekoop (2013). "Risk aversion and religion" (PDF). Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 47 (2): 165–183. doi:10.1007/s11166-013-9174-8. S2CID   54664945..
  29. ↑ 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..
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.