Assessing Religiosity

Religiosity refers to the intensity and consistency of one's practice of a religion. Religiosity has been found not only to inform an individual's attitudes toward what constitutes moral behavior in practice but also to shape the structure of a society itself. Religiosity is assessed by asking about religious beliefs, measuring membership in religious organizations, and measuring attendance at religious services. However, the research results in studies of religiosity are inconsistent, often due to problems in developing adequate and consistent operational definitions of the term. Better and more consistent measures are needed for replicable results, including the development of dimensions of religiosity.

Keywords Demographic Data; Doctrine; Mysticism; Operational Definition; Piety; Religion; Religiosity; Socioeconomic Status (SES); Spirituality; Survey; Validity

Sociology of Religion > Assessing Religiosity

Overview

Views on religion and its adherents vary widely. For Karl Marx, religion was the opium of the people, and Sigmund Freud opined that religion is an illusion which derives its strength from its readiness to fit in with our innate wishful impulses. Not everyone, of course, agrees with such opinions. American philosopher George Santayana, for example, said that religion in its humility restores man to his only dignity, the courage to live by grace, and Patrick Henry called religion the duty which we owe to our creator. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this wide variation in opinion, ranging from personal experience in a religion to personal experience with the adherents of a religion or religions.

Defining Religiosity

Religiosity is the state of being religious or the measurement of the intensity and consistency of one's practice of a religion. The term religiosity can also be used to refer to an excessive devotion to religion. In addition, the sociological term religiosity is often confused with terms more difficult to operationally define, such as piety and spirituality.

Piety

Piety is religious devotion to and reverence for the supernatural being or beings worshipped in a given religion, or the devoutness and dutifulness to the forms and obligations of one's religion. Although sometimes used interchangeably, the definition of piety differs from that of religiosity in the reason people perform pious acts. Piety typically implies that the religious acts — whether they be prayer or meditation, study of sacred texts, or observable acts in the world — are done because of an underlying belief in the doctrine and faith statements of a religion. The actions that characterize religiosity, however, can be done without the same level of belief. For example, one can go to church every Sunday for the sake of one's children or parents or because one's spouse attends. Although this would be a measure of religiosity, it does not make any statement about why the person is performing this act (i.e., because of the spouse or because he or she believes in the teachings of the church). Similarly, the person who attends church because of his or her spouse would often be judged to be higher on a scale of religiosity than the housebound person who does not attend church but truly believes in the doctrines and teachings of the church.

Spirituality

The term spirituality is also often confused with the concept of religiosity. However, spirituality deals directly with a concern for intangible aspects of the soul or the spirit as opposed to the more tangible, quantifiable considerations of measures of religiosity. For example, a person who was high on the quality of religiosity might regularly attend religious services because he or she felt it to be an obligation for non-religious reasons, while a spiritual person might not attend religious services regularly because he or she had not found one that subscribed to the same spiritual principles or emphasized the mystic aspects of the religion that are typically not experienced in public. Further, a person can be spiritual — i.e., have a great focus on things of the spirit over material things — and not adhere to any religion.

Applications

Measuring Religiosity

Part of the problem in measuring religiosity is operationally defining the underlying construct. Certainly, using religious words or consistently practicing the obligations of one's religion are good approximations of one's faith or beliefs, but they are only approximations. By their very definition, however, the more theological concepts of piety and spirituality are difficult to operationally define because they are concerned with the intangible, and often with things that cannot be well-expressed in human language. This does not mean that measures of religiosity are meaningless. However, it must be remembered that these are approximations only of the underlying construct. Further, religiosity is an umbrella term that can be used to examine various aspects of the underlying construct. As a result, definitions of religiosity are often too vague to yield replicable research results. It is important to remember these facts when interpreting the research literature on religiosity. As mentioned above, different people may perform the same religious act for vastly different reasons. Depending on the research question being investigated, it is important that these subgroups be separated to truly understand the factors affecting people's behavior.

In general, religiosity is measured in several general ways: religious beliefs, membership in religious organizations, and attendance at religious services. Religious beliefs can be measured by using surveys to collect data concerning how strongly a person agrees or disagrees with various statements about the tenets of one or more religions or the degree to which they practice various religious obligations. One example of such a data collection instrument is the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. This ten-item questionnaire inquires about respondents' view of their religious faith and its implications for their lives through such statements as,

• "My religious faith is extremely important to me,"
• "I consider myself active in my faith or church," and
• "My faith impacts many of my decisions.'

Respondents rate each of the ten statements on a four-point scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The survey is written to be neutral regarding religious preference through the use of such phrasing as "faith or church" rather than the more explicitly Christian term "church." However, the survey instrument has a very definite monotheistic bent: one question asks respondents about their "relationship with God," which limits the usefulness of the scale for practitioners and believers in polytheistic religions.

Another example of a survey instrument designed to measure religiosity is the Inclusive Christian Scale (Cutting, 2007). Obviously from its title, this instrument also is not applicable to the great mass of adherents to non-Christian religions. However, it more expressly operationally defines the meaning of religiosity for Christians than does the Santa Clara Questionnaire. In addition, the Inclusive Christian Scale attempts to better define the dimensions of religiosity. The Inclusive Christian Scale collects demographic data on gender, age, marital status, race/ethnicity, education, state of residence, current denomination and denomination of childhood, and ordination status. This section is followed by fifty-six questions that respondents rate on a six-point scale ranging from "not very important for me" to "very important for me."

The questions investigate six dimensions of religiosity that have been found in previous research studies. The "Evangelical" dimension asks questions about the respondents' practices in prayer, evangelism or outreach, and faith as a source of strength. The "Christian Conservative" dimension collects data on the respondents' attitudes toward avoiding sinful acts, literal interpretation the Bible, and experiencing a faith that transforms one's life. The "Activist" dimension asks questions about the respondents' focus on social justice around the world as an outgrowth of one's faith. The "Golden Rule" dimension collects data about the respondents' focus on treating others as they would want to be treated themselves. There is some degree of overlap between the "Activist" dimension and the "Golden Rule" dimension, but the former focuses more on social structures and the latter focuses more on individual actions. The "Community Involvement" dimension gathers data concerning the degree to which the respondents actively participate in their church community as an outgrowth of their faith. Finally, the "Mystic" dimension attempts to gather information about the respondents' focus on an all-encompassing, intimate relationship with God. Research on both these survey instruments is in process in an attempt to develop better systems and criteria for measuring religiosity (Cutting, 2007).

Religiosity is often simply measured by determining an individual's membership in religious organizations. Frequently, gathering data for this measure of religiosity is as simple as asking to what church, denomination, or religious group an individual belongs. However, this measure does not assess the degree to which the individual agrees with the belief system of that religion or practices the tenets of the religion. Further, this measure of religiosity does not even measure whether or not the individual actively practices his or her religion. It might be assumed that people who are not active practitioners of a religion would not claim to be adherents. However, a number of Christian denominations baptize infants into the Church. Although typically regular attendance and participation in worship services is necessary in order to be considered a member in good standing, many people do, in fact, identify themselves as members of that church or denomination based on their status as having been baptized. Further, some people may regularly attend the public services of churches or religious organization or practice the forms, common tenets, and rituals of a religion in private, without going through any necessary initiation rites for the religion (e.g., baptism, church membership). Such people, therefore, would be correct in saying that they had no official religious affiliation (depending on how that was operationally defined), yet in actuality, they have a high degree of religiosity (Andersen & Taylor, 2002).

Because of such difficulties with using membership in religious organizations as a criterion for religiosity, attendance at religious services is often used either as a substitute for membership in a religious organization or as a supplementary measure. In some ways, attendance at religious services is a better criterion; however, this approach to measuring religiosity is also not without its drawbacks. First, some people attend religious services for reasons other than personal religiosity. For example, one might attend out of habit even after one no longer believes in the tenets of that religion. Or, one might attend in the belief that merely saying the forms and rituals in public services is enough to obtain the benefits of that religion. Similarly, one might regularly attend religious services not as a demonstration of one's own beliefs, but in order to please others (e.g., a spouse, parents, friends, coworkers). Second, some people cannot or do not attend public religious services for a variety of reasons yet still should be high in any meaningful scale of religiosity. For example, some mystics are more interested in personal experiences of the ineffable than they are in practicing what they feel are often meaningless forms and rituals. In addition, some people who are highly religious both in practice and belief may not be physically able to get to public religious services. These people may be highly religious but would truthfully reply that they do not attend or participate in public religious services (Andersen & Taylor, 2002).

Measuring religiosity by determining membership in religious organizations as well as attendance at religious services in many cases will yield a more meaningful measure of a person's religiosity than using either one of those measures alone. However, even this combination of measures is not perfect, as it measures outward forms rather than truly measuring the intensity and consistency with which one practices one's religion. Those interested in measuring religiosity either for theoretical or research purposes are well-advised to develop a valid operational definition of religiosity as well as a comprehensive survey or other instrument to measure the various aspects of this definition.

Discourse

From a sociological point of view, a true measure of religiosity is important, as the intensity and consistency with which one practices one's religion is often played out in other places in one's life. For example, the Hindu caste system continues to operate in India, impacting the jobs to which one can aspire and the resulting socioeconomic status and religious privilege of members of that caste. Hinduism is not the only religion that permeates and affects society. The United States was once considered a Christian country, as can be seen by the motto "In God We Trust.” Similarly, the Islamic practices and doctrines of many Middle Eastern countries affect the very laws governing these societies and their views on non-Islamic cultures.

Religiosity & Mental Health

Research is increasingly finding that the degree of one's religiosity often affects the quality of other aspects of one's life such as health and reactions to stress. One area in which religiosity has been found to influence people's attitudes and actions is death anxiety and the acceptance of the inevitability of death. One of the factors used to determine sentience is the knowledge of one's own death. Harding, Flannelly, Weaver, and Costa (2005) examine the influence of religion on death anxiety and death acceptance. This study has implications for better understanding of the way that religiosity affects one's acceptance of and anxiety about death, as well as for how professionals who deal with issues of death and dying (e.g., counselors, social workers) can better work with individuals experiencing such issues. Further, the study has implications concerning practical operational definitions of religiosity as well as an explanation for problems arising from inadequate operational definitions of religiosity in previous studies.

Subjects in the study were 130 members of an Episcopal church in New York City. The survey instrument collected various demographic variables, including gender, ethnicity, education level, age, years as an Episcopalian, and years as a member of the church from which the study sample was drawn. Data were also collected about the extent of the subjects involved in church groups, committees, and guilds. Other measures of religiosity were gathered through Rohrbaugh and Jessor's Religiosity Measure, Templar's Death Anxiety Scale, and Ray and Najman's Death Acceptance Scale. The authors correlated several dimensions of religiosity with death anxiety and death acceptance. The ritual, experiential, and consequential dimensions were not found to be correlated significantly with either death anxiety or death acceptance. However, one's theological beliefs, belief in God, and belief in an afterlife were all significantly and positively associated with death acceptance (i.e., the greater the belief in these things, the greater the acceptance of death) and significantly and negatively associated with death anxiety (i.e., the greater the belief in these things, the less anxiety about death). Based on these results, the authors concluded that measures of religiosity need to consider both one's belief in God and one's belief in an afterlife in order to truly measure one's religiosity. The authors further posited that the inconsistent results of previous studies on religiosity and its influence on death anxiety and death acceptance may be a result of a lack of inclusion of these dimensions of religiosity (Harding, Flannelly, Weaver, & Costa, 2005).

Conclusion

Although distinct from both piety and spirituality, religiosity is a measure of the intensity and consistency with which one practices one's religion. Religiosity has been found not only to inform an individual's attitudes toward what constitutes moral behavior in practice but also to shape the structure of a society. In general, religiosity is measured by collecting data concerning religious beliefs, membership in religious organizations, and/or attendance at religious services. However, the research results in studies of religiosity are inconsistent. This is often due to problems in developing adequate and consistent operational definitions of the term. Although a combination of these measures can often improve the validity of a measure of religiosity, better and more consistent measures are needed for replicable results. In addition, research is needed to determine the dimensions of religiosity.

Terms & Concepts

Demographic Data: Statistical information about a given subset of the human population, such as persons living in a particular area, shopping at an area mall, or subscribing to a local newspaper. Demographic data might include such information as age, gender, or income distribution.

Doctrine: A principle (or body of principles) accepted or believed by a religious group.

Mysticism: A belief in the existence and experience of realities that cannot be perceptually or intellectually apprehended but that can be directly accessed through subjective experience. Because mystic realities are beyond both perception and intellect, the mystics typically find it difficult or impossible to articulate their experience to others.

Operational Definition: A definition that is stated in terms that can be observed and measured.

Piety: Religious devotion to and reverence for the supernatural being or beings worship in a given religion. Devoutness and dutifulness to the forms and obligations of one's religion.

Religion: A personal or institutional system grounded in the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers considered to have created and to govern the universe.

Religiosity: The quality of being religious; the intensity and consistency of one's practice of a religion. Religiosity is measured by asking about religious beliefs, measuring membership in religious organizations, and measuring attendance at religious services. The term religiosity can also be used to refer to an excessive devotion to religion.

Socioeconomic Status (SES): The position of an individual or group on the two vectors of social and economic status and their combination. Factors contributing to socioeconomic status include (but are not limited to) income, type and prestige of occupation, place of residence, and educational attainment.

Spirituality: The quality or state of being in which one is concerned with intangible things of the spirit as opposed to tangible or material things.

Survey: A data collection instrument or research study used to acquire information on the opinions, attitudes, or reactions of people.

Validity: The degree to which a survey or other data collection instrument measures what it purports to measure. A data collection instrument cannot be valid unless it is reliable. Content validity is a measure of how well assessment instrument items reflect the concepts that the instrument developer is trying to assess. Content validation is often performed by experts. Construct validity is a measure of how well an assessment instrument measures what it is intended to measure as defined by another assessment instrument. Face validity is merely the concept that an assessment instrument appears to measure what it is trying to measure. Cross validity is the validation of an assessment instrument with a new sample to determine if the instrument is valid across situations. Predictive validity refers to how well an assessment instrument predicts future events.

Bibliography

Anderson, M. L. & Taylor, H. F. (2002). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Crosby, J., & Bossley, N. (2012). The religiosity gap: Preferences for seeking help from religious advisors. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15, 141–159. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71347157

Cutting, M. (2007). The Religiosity Scales Project. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from http://religiosityscalesproject.com.

Harding, S. R., Flannelly, K. J., Weaver, A. J., & Costa, K. G. (2005). The influence of religion on death anxiety and death acceptance. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 8 , 253–261. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18685321&site=ehost-live

McDowell, J. & Stewart, D. (1983). Handbook of today's religions. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Pearce, L. D., Foster, E., & Hardie, J. (2013). A person-centered examination of adolescent religiosity using latent class analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52, 57–79. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85862271

Porter, J. R., & Emerson, M. O. (2013). Religiosity and social network diversity: Decomposing the 'divided by faith' theoretical framework. Social Science Quarterly, 94, 732–757. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89548367

Suggested Reading

Brown, D. R., Carney, J. S., Parrish, M. S., & Klem, J. L. (2013). Assessing spirituality: The relationship between spirituality and mental health. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 15, 107–122. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86994288

Cottone, J., Drucker, P., & Javier, R. A. (2007). Predictors of moral reasoning: Components of executive functioning and aspects of religiosity. Journal for the Scientific study of Religion, 46 , 37–53. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=24350557&site=ehost-live

Eichhorn, J. (2012). Happiness for believers? contextualizing the effects of religiosity on life-satisfaction. European Sociological Review, 28, 583–593. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82108678

Fortner, B. V. & Neimeyer, R. A. (1999). Death anxiety in older adults: A quantitative review. Death Studies, 23 . Retrieved May 13, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=1969794&site=ehost-live

Lazar, A. (2006). Fear of personal death as a predictor of motivation for religious behavior. Review of Religious Research, 48 , 179–189. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=23492503&site=ehost-live