Religiosity

Last updated
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

The Oxford English Dictionary defines religiosity as: "Religiousness; religious feeling or belief. [...] Affected or excessive religiousness". [3] Different scholars have seen this concept as broadly about religious orientations and degrees of involvement or commitment. [4] The contrast between "religious" and "religiose" (superficially religious) and the concept of "strengthening" faith [5] suggest differences in the intensity of religiosity.

Contents

Scholars attempt to measure religiosity at the levels of individuals or groups, but differ as to what behaviors constitute religiosity. [4] Sociologists of religion have observed that an individual's experience, beliefs, sense of belonging, and general behavior often are not congruent with their religious behavior, since there is much diversity in how one can be religious or not. [6] Problems arise in measuring religiosity. For instance, measures of variables such as church attendance produce different results when different methods are used, such as traditional surveys as opposed to time-use surveys. [7]

Components

The measurement of religiosity is hampered by the difficulties involved in defining what is meant by the term and what components it includes. 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 being discussed. [8]

Numerous studies have explored the different components of human religiosity. [9] [10] What most have found (often using factor analysis) is that there are multiple dimensions. For instance, Marie Cornwall and colleagues 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). [11] For each of these components of religiosity, there were two cross classifications, resulting in the six dimensions: [11]

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. [12] Other sociologists adapted Glock's list to include additional components (see for example, a six component measure by Mervin F. Verbit). [13] [14] [15] Other researchers have found different dimensions, generally ranging 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. 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. Nonetheless, an individual's scores on a measure of religiosity can vary between dimensions; they may not score high on all dimensions or low on all dimensions.

For example[ original research? ], an individual could accept 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 did not accept orthodox Christian doctrines (belief dimension) but did attend a charismatic worship service (practice dimension) in order to develop his/her sense of oneness with the divine (spirituality dimension). A different individual might 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.

Demographic studies often show a wide diversity of religious beliefs, belonging, and practices in both religious and non-religious populations. For instance, among Americans who are not religious and not seeking religion, 68% believe in God, 12% are atheists, 17% are agnostics. Also, 18%[ who? ] self-identify as religious, 37% self-identify as spiritual but not religious, and 42% self-identify as neither spiritual nor religious. Furthermore, 21%[ who? ] pray every day and 24% pray once a month. [16] [17] [18] Global studies on religion also show diversity. [19]

Decades of anthropological, sociological, and psychological research have established that the common assumption of "religious congruence" is rarely accurate. "Religious congruence" is the view 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. People's religious ideas are fragmented, loosely connected, and context-dependent, like their ideas in all other domains of culture and life. The beliefs, affiliations, and behaviors of any individual are complex activities that have many sources including culture. Mark Chaves gives the following examples of religious incongruence: "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." [6]

Difficulties in measurement

Polls and surveys

Decades of anthropological, sociological, and psychological research have shown that congruence between an individual's beliefs, attitudes, and behavior concerning religion and irreligion is rare. [20]

The reliability of any poll results, in general and specifically on religion, can be questioned due numerous factors such as: [21]

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. [22]

In general, polling numbers are difficult to interpret and should not be taken at face value, since people in different cultural contexts may interpret the same questions differently. [23]

Responses to Gallup polls on religiosity vary based on how the question is worded. Since the early 2000s, Gallup has routinely asked about complex topics like belief in God using three different question wordings and they have consistently received three different percentages in the responses. [24]

In the United States

Two major surveys in the United States, the General Social Survey (GSS) and the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), have consistently produced discrepancies between their demographic estimates on religion that amount to 8% and growing. This is due to a few factors, such as differences in question wording that impact participant responses due to "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 differences in the representativeness of the samples (e.g., "nones" are more politically moderate in the GSS sample than in the CCES sample, while Protestants are more conservative in the CCES sample than in the GSS sample). [25]

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." [26]

According to a Pew Research Center 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. [27]

Gallup's editor-in-chief, Frank Newport, argues that numbers on surveys may give an incomplete picture. In his view, declines in religious affiliation or belief in God on surveys may not actually reflect real declines, but instead increased honesty to interviewers on spiritual matters due to viewpoints previously seen as deviant becoming more socially acceptable. [28]

Censuses

Questions of religion are "marginal" in censuses, usually optional, and are left out of most censuses in most countries. [29] Despite attempts to standardize wording, census phrasing of the religion question have not been consistent over time or from country to country, with responders understanding them in 3 different ways. [29] Censuses aim to enumerate religious communities, not religious faith, and "as long as the censuses in more than half of the world do not ask about religion it will not be possible to tell even within the closest million the size of the different religious communities globally." [29] Due to the complexity of measuring religious identity, censuses sometimes also overestimate groups; this was the case for Christians in Britain, as typically one person fills out the census one behalf of a household, as distinguished from surveys which ask individual adults. [30]

Causes and correlates

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 [32] [33] and sociological studies of welfare, availability, and legal regulations [34] (state religions, etc.).

Koenig and colleagues reported in a 2005 research paper that between adolescence and adulthood, 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%. [35]

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, researchers Anthony Gill and Eric Lundsgaarde documented a much stronger correlation between welfare state spending and religiosity (see diagram). [31]

Just-world fallacy

Studies have found belief in a just world to be correlated with aspects of religiosity. [36] [37]

Risk-aversion

Several studies have discovered a positive correlation between the degree of religiousness and risk aversion. [38] [39]

See also

Demographics

Related Research Articles

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

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 is 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 absence or rejection of religious beliefs or practices. It encompasses a wide range of viewpoints drawn from various philosophical and intellectual perspectives, including atheism, agnosticism, religious skepticism, rationalism, secularism, and non-religious spirituality. These perspectives can vary, with individuals who identify as irreligious holding diverse beliefs about religion and its role in their lives.

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.

Religion in the United States is both widespread and diverse, with higher reported levels of belief than other wealthy Western nations. Polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in a higher power (2021), engage in spiritual practices (2022), and consider themselves religious or spiritual (2017).

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.

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".

Secular spirituality is the adherence to a spiritual philosophy without adherence to a religion. Secular spirituality emphasizes the inner peace of the individual, rather than a relationship with the divine. Secular spirituality is made up of the search for meaning outside of a religious institution; it considers one's relationship with the self, others, nature, and whatever else one considers to be the ultimate. Often, the goal of secular spirituality is living happily and/or helping others.

In the United States, between 4% 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.

Psychology encompasses a vast domain, and includes many different approaches to the study of mental processes and behavior. Below are the major areas of inquiry that taken together constitute psychology. A comprehensive list of the sub-fields and areas within psychology can be found at the list of psychology topics and list of psychology disciplines.

<i>Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research</i>

Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research is a report, originally published in 1999, by a Fetzer Institute / National Institute on Aging working group on the measurement of religion and spirituality. A revised version with a new preface was published in 2003. The book presents a series of 12 self-report questionnaire measures, each focused on a particular aspect of religiousness or spirituality, along with reviews of underlying theory and supporting research. The book's purpose is to provide validated measures of spiritual and religious factors in health research. The book includes the Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality (BMMRS), a practical measure with selected items from the 12 previous chapters.

"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.

One of the most common ways that people cope with trauma is through the comfort found in religious or spiritual practices. Psychologists of religion have performed multiple studies to measure the positive and negative effects of this coping style. Leading researchers have split religious coping into two categories: positive religious coping and negative religious coping. Individuals who use positive religious coping are likely to seek spiritual support and look for meaning in a traumatic situation. Negative religious coping expresses conflict, question, and doubt regarding issues of God and faith.

Self-transcendence is a personality trait that involves the expansion or evaporation of personal boundaries. This may potentially include spiritual experiences such as considering oneself an integral part of the universe. Several psychologists, including Viktor Frankl, Abraham Maslow, and Pamela G. Reed have made contributions to the theory of self-transcendence.

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

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. ↑ Crabtree, Steve (31 August 2010). "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. ↑ "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.
  4. 1 2 Holdcroft, Barbara (September 2006). "What is Religiosity?". Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. 10 (1): 89–103.
  5. ↑ For example: Maclaren, Alexander (1887). "Conciliatory and Hortatory Transition to Polemics". In Nicoll, William Robertson (ed.). The Expositor's Bible. Vol. 42: Colossians and Philemon. London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 182. Retrieved 11 July 2024. The faith which is already the firmest, and by its firmness may gladden an Apostle, is still capable of and needs strengthening.
  6. 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.
  7. ↑ 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.
  8. ↑ Holdcroft, Barbara (September 2006). "What is Religiosity?". Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. 10 (1): 89–103.
  9. ↑ Brink, T.L. 1993. Religiosity: measurement. in Survey of Social Science: Psychology, Frank N. Magill, Ed., Pasadena, CA: Salem Press, 1993, pp. 2096–2102.
  10. ↑ Hill, Peter C. and Hood, Ralph W. Jr. 1999. Measures of Religiosity. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press. ISBN   0-89135-106-X
  11. 1 2 Cornwall, Marie; Albrecht, S.L.; Cunningham, P.H.; Pitcher, B.L. (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.
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ Verbit, M. F. (1970). "The components and dimensions of religious behavior: Toward a reconceptualization of religiosity". American Mosaic. 24: 39.
  14. ↑ 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.
  15. ↑ Küçükcan, Talip. 2000. Can Religiosity Be Measured? Dimensions of Religious Commitment: Theories Revisited.
  16. ↑ "American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population" (PDF). American Religious Identification Survey. 2008. Retrieved 2014-01-30.
  17. ↑ "Religion and the Unaffiliated". "Nones" on the Rise. Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. October 9, 2012.
  18. ↑ "Most of the Religiously Unaffiliated Still Keep Belief in God". Pew Research Center. November 15, 2012.
  19. ↑ "The Global Religious Landscape". Pew Research Center. 2012-12-18.
  20. ↑ Mark Chaves. "SSSR Presidential Address Rain Dances in the Dry Season: Overcoming the Religious Congruence Fallacy". Wiley (publisher) . Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01489.x . Retrieved 9 December 2024.
  21. ↑ 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.
  22. ↑ 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).
  23. ↑ Holifield, E. Brooks (2015). Why Are Americans So Religious? The Limitations of Market Explanations. Religion and the Marketplace in the United States. pp. 33–60. ISBN 9780199361809. "Such numbers cannot be taken at face value. They do not simply represent the world as it is but are self-representations. The difference between how Americans and citizens of other Western nations answer pollsters’ questions is first of all about how they think of themselves and how they want to be thought of in the context in which the question is asked. It means something different to say that one is “very religious” in Picayune, Mississippi, than it does in Oslo. Someone might have many reasons to answer yes to such a question, and it might be misleading to interpret the “yes” as having one simple meaning."
  24. ↑ Saad, Lydia; Hrynowski, Zach (24 June 2022). "How Many Americans Believe in God?". Gallup.com. Gallup. The answer to how many Americans believe in God depends on how the question is asked. Gallup has measured U.S. adults' belief in God three different ways in recent years, with varying results.
  25. ↑ 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. S2CID   256240351.
  26. ↑ 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.
  27. ↑ "Not All Nonbelievers Call Themselves Atheists | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project". Pewforum.org. 2009-04-02. Retrieved 2014-02-27.
  28. ↑ Johnson, David (7 April 2016). "See How Americans' Belief in God Has Changed Over 70 Years". Time. Retrieved 2018-03-24.
  29. 1 2 3 Thorvaldsen, Gunnar (2014). "Religion in the Census". Social Science History. 38 (1–2): 203–220. doi:10.1017/ssh.2015.16.
  30. ↑ Voas, David; Bruce, Steve (January 2004). "Research note: The 2001 census and christian identification in Britain". Journal of Contemporary Religion. 19 (1): 23–28. doi:10.1080/1353790032000165087. ISSN   1353-7903.
  31. 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.
  32. ↑ Bouchard, TJ Jr; McGue, M; Lykken, D; Tellegen, A (Jun 1999). "Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: genetic and environmental influences and personality correlates". Twin Res. 2 (2): 88–98. doi: 10.1375/twin.2.2.88 . PMID   10480743.
  33. ↑ Kirk, KM; Eaves, LJ; Martin, NG (Jun 1999). "Self-transcendence as a measure of spirituality in a sample of older Australian twins". Twin Res. 2 (2): 81–7. doi: 10.1375/twin.2.2.81 . PMID   10480742.
  34. ↑ Nolan, P., & Lenski, G. E. (2010). Human societies: Introduction to macrosociology. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publisher. ISBN   978-1594515781.
  35. ↑ 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.
  36. ↑ 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.
  37. ↑ Kurst, J.; Bjorck, J.; Tan, S. (2000). "Causal attributions for uncontrollable negative events". Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 19: 47–60.
  38. ↑ 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..
  39. ↑ 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.