Thesis (Subject to 1st Draft) (2)
-
Upload
michelle-uytico-navos -
Category
Documents
-
view
24 -
download
0
Transcript of Thesis (Subject to 1st Draft) (2)
1A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
Bertulfo, Mary Apple
Divinagracia, Charles
Gacus, Rudiela Maria Tessa
Gealon, Jirah Mae
Navos, Michelle
University of San Carlos
Department of Psychology
Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City
2A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
Risk taking behavior is a widely debated topic. The nature versus nurture argument is at the
center of the discussion. Freud and Watson relied heavily on biological bases as indicators of
personality development. They argue that underdeveloped biological systems can result in
impulsive, and risk taking behavior (adolescent risk taking). Other theorists contest the biological
basis for personality development and stress the importance of external forces (social experience)
as a driving force in personality development. Social experience is an essential part of
development because social interaction is encountered frequently. Religion is one important
social experience that holds certain ideologies and doctrines. Firm belief, adequate knowledge
and implementation of religious doctrines comprise religiosity. This study aims to supply further
knowledge of the relationship between levels of religiosity and its correlation to risk taking
behavior. The religiosity measure which incorporates the different dimensions of
religiosity( Glock & Stark, 1965) and the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) (Weber,
Blais & and Betz, 2002) was used as the bases for correlating levels of religiosity and risk taking
behavior. There was no significant correlation between levels of religiosity and risk taking
behavior as a whole. On the other hand, certain dimensions of religiosity were found to be
significantly correlated with certain aspects of risk taking behavior. This information can be used
to stress the importance of certain dimensions of religiosity and its effects on certain aspects of
risk taking behavior.
Religion is an integral part of most cultures across the world. It is an organized system of
beliefs, practices and rituals designed to facilitate closeness to God (a higher power or ultimate
truth) and develop personal relationships with other people (Thoresen, 1999). It is considered as
a powerful construct that influences values, beliefs, decision making, personality, self-
3A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
knowledge, and the development of self-control (Cacioppo & Brandon, 2002). In general, it can
influence behavior and personality. Behavior, which refers to the way in which a person acts in
response to a particular situation or stimulus, can be internal or external, conscious or
unconscious, voluntary or involuntary. Each action caused by a certain behavior can create
different outcomes that may benefit or cost the individual. How the person responds to these
uncertain outcomes is the definition of Risk-taking behavior (Trimpop, 1994).
Risk-taking behavior can be caused by both external and internal factors. There has been
a healthy debate as to the weight of external and internal influences. Sigmund Freud says that
anatomy translates into destiny (Freud, 1924). He believes that individuals have predisposed
traits, and these traits guide personality development throughout a lifetime. Other psychologists
such as Adler have contrasting ideas. He has a more optimistic view of people, arguing that
people rely heavily on social interest, and that people are largely responsible for who they are
(Feist & Feist, 2010). External factors (social experiences) are encountered by individuals from
the moment they are born. These social experiences continue as the person progresses through
life. In general, people encounter social experiences every day and it cannot be ignored that these
heavily influence perception and action regardless of internal factors. One social experience that
is a popular construct is the belief in a higher power or ultimate truth. Most refer to this construct
as Religion.
Since religion is an important social experience, therefore it can influence behavior. Risk
taking is one type of behavior. Kumar et al. (2010) explained that religious beliefs have
diverging effects on risk-taking behaviors. If a person has high levels of devoutness, it can mean
4A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
stronger grasp on the religious beliefs. Do these stronger grasp on religious beliefs lower risk
taking behavior? On a nationally representative sample of American high school seniors,
Johnston and O’Malley (1993) at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center, tested
respondents action to risk taking activities (adventure seeking). They found a negative
correlation between self-reported importance of religion and aversion to pure risk. In a similar
study, Religious attendance was correlated with several measures of aversion to uncertainty (i.e.
trying new things in life) (Hilary & Hui 2009). They found out that there was a negative
correlation between religious attendance and the preference of risk taking. According to the
studies, religious attendance and religious beliefs can lower risk taking behavior, but going to
church regularly and recognizing religious beliefs is not a measure of religiosity. People can go
to church regularly and believe in religious concepts but it does not translate how devout the
person is. Religiosity is multi-dimensional (experiential, ideological/intellectual, consequential,
ritualistic) and does not rely on conceptual belief of the person only. If one dimension of
religiosity is present, it does not necessarily guarantee the acquisition of other dimensions, nor
does one dimension of religiosity flow in another (Glock & Stark, 1965). Therefore, it is
important to factor in the different dimensions of religiosity when assessing the religiosity of a
person.
This study tries to correlate the different dimensions of religiosity and level of risk
taking behavior. Since, religiosity is a frequent social encounter; we predict that there is a
negative correlation between levels of religiosity and risk taking behavior.
The main objective of this study is to be able to find a connection between an individual’s
level of religiosity and the degree of risk-taking behavior, and also to know the role of an
5A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
individual’s religion towards his principles and decisions in doing such actions that may or may
not lead to unknown consequence. Since, the society in present time is concerned with the high
rates of involvement in risk behaviors; this study gives concrete awareness on how the degree of
religiosity influences risk taking behavior. Every religion has constructs which the individual is
expected to follow. It is logical to assume that the more devout the individual is to the respective
religion, the likelihood of following the constructs of the religion also increases but another
argument can be made. High levels of devoutness can also entail the individual to adopt the
“leave it all to God” attitude, thus allowing the person to disregard the constructs and take the
risk. If there is indeed a negative relationship between levels of religiosity and the degree of risk
taking behaviors, this information can be very useful for assessing why people take risks,
especially adolescents. Adolescents engage in risk taking behavior more often than adults. This
study can also be used to encourage adolescents to actively participate in religious activities if
there is a relationship between the two variables.
WHAT IS RELIGIOSITY?
Religiosity is a complex construct which is hard to define mainly because of two reasons.
The first reason is that the nature of the English word religiosity is said to be uncertain and
imprecise. It is synonymous with other terms such as faith, religiousness, orthodoxy, belief,
piousness, devotion, and holiness. However, the studies conducted about religiosity would
consider these as parts, aspects, or dimensions of religiosity instead of considering them as an
equivalent term for it. The second reason for this complexity is that the concept of religiosity is
usually discussed over several academic disciplines, and that these academic disciplines have
6A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
different approaches and views about religiosity (Cardwell, 1980; Demerath & Hammond,
1969).
Though religiosity is a hard word to define (Fetzer Institute, 1999; Hackney & Sanders,
2003), most theorists agree that it is not the same with spirituality (Fetzer Institute, 1999; Miller
1999), and that religiosity is the external or outward expression of the inward spiritual system
(Elkins, Hedstrom, Hughes, Leaf, & Saunders, 1988; Myers, Sweeney, & Witmer, 2000;
Westgate, 1996). Hixson, Gruchow, and Morgan (1998) stated that religiosity also refers to the
commitment and devoutness of an individual to a religion, or in other words, it is the quality of
being religious. There are a lot of arguments about the true definition of religiosity; academic
disciplines have concepts and ideas which differ from one another. It is a construct which
interests many people and is currently explored by numerous studies and is acquiring different
terms and dimensions. An individual’s religious orientation represents a deep core of religiosity
which is related to a person’s basic personality features.
DIMENSIONS OF RELIGIOSITY
It is stated that Religiosity is a complex concept to define. Instead, religiosity is referred
in terms of dimensions rather than relying on one definition alone. Therefore, it is important to
clearly define the dimensions of religiosity to have a holistic understanding of the concept. Even
if most theorists agree than religiosity is composed of dimensions, some studies still contest the
idea of dimensionality (e.g. Layton and Gladden, 1974). But, numerous studies have
strengthened the claim of dimensionality in religiosity (e.g. Lenski, 1961, Glock and Stark,
1965, Faulkner and DeJong, 1966, King & Hunt, 1972, 1974).
7A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
With the growing number of studies supporting religiosity’s dimensionality, variations
have been created due to the different perspectives and approaches of the researchers
(Cunningham & Pitcher, 1986). ). Fukuyama (1960) examined four dimensions of religiosity. He
identified these as cognitive, cultic, creedal, and devotional while Lenski (1963) considered four
ways religiosity can be expressed: associational, communal, doctrinal and devotional. Each
researcher has different interpretations of religiosity’s dimensionality but almost all of them trace
back to Glock and Stark’s (1965) four dimensions (experiential, ideological, consequential, and
ritualistic). This study uses the Religiosity Measure (Rohrbaugh & Jessor, 1975) as the scale for
measuring the level of Religiosity an individual possesses. The Religiosity Measure uses the four
dimensions developed by Glock and Stark as the basis for measuring levels of Religiosity.
Therefore, it is important to clearly define the four dimensions developed by Glock and Stark.
The experiential dimension focuses on personal experience, individualizes and differentiates
religiosity from person to person. The ideological/ intellectual dimension focuses on knowledge
of religious beliefs and how the beliefs hold true for the individual. The ritualistic dimensions
consist of church attendance and involvement in other religious activities, while the
consequential dimension is concerned with understanding the repercussions if an individual
breaks a doctrine that is held by the church. Does having a strong foundation of all four
dimensions affect behavior? Moreover, does strong belief in the four dimensions affect risk
taking behavior?
WHAT IS RISK TAKING BEHAVIOR?
Risk taking behavior is any unconsciously or consciously manner with an apparent
uncertainty about its effect or probable benefits for the physical, economic, or psycho-social
well-being of others. The definition refers to the conscious and unconscious behavior, result and
8A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
consequence uncertainty, benefits and losses, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, individual and
societal risks, and personal experience of risks. (Trimpop, 1994)
As of the personal experience of risks, it is essential for any emotional, physiological and
cognitive change in behavior. Without personal understanding of a risk, an individual can neither
adjust to it nor include it in any kind of expenditure or advantage analysis. Furthermore, the
relativity of gains and losses as a consequence of personal reference makes risk when defined as
loss in any way a completely personal view. (Trimpop, 1994)
As the psychology of risk taking behavior refers to the individuals and their perception of
risk, the objective risks one has to deal with are here minor apprehension. It must also be
stressed that risks (pure risk and speculative risk) should not be confused with risk taking
(speculative risk only).
TYPES OF RISK
Risk taking can take two forms, pure risk and speculative risk. Pure risk refers to a
situation wherein no gain is possible. This can stem from external forces and is out of the
individual’s control (car accidents). Speculative risk is a type of risk wherein gain or loss is
possible (gambling, taking chances). Previous studies show that contrasting attitudes toward
pure risk is associated with religious behavior. Other studies highlight the correlation between
religious beliefs and aversion to pure risk. (Halek & Eisenhauer, 2001, Miller & Hoffmann,
1995, Hilary & Hui, 2009).
This study focuses on speculative risk because it focuses on the effect of religiosity on
the choices the person makes. Pure risk is disregarded because the person is unable to choose a
possible outcome. Speculative risk can come in different forms. A form of speculative risk may
9A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
be excessive alcohol consumption or the risk of sexual disease without using condoms. These
choices lie in the hands of the individual. It is up to the person to weigh the possible outcomes.
Speculative risk is commonly referred to as risk taking behavior. But, before risk taking behavior
occurs, the individual must first survey the risk then transform the risk into a behavioral action
pattern (Fischoff et al.,). Surveying (perceiving) the risk is individualized and is different from
person to person.
HOW DO PEOPLE PERCIEVE RISKS?
Several models of identifying risks have been constructed summarized by Yates and
Stone (1992), but there are certain restrictions in perceiving risks, some people may not view
something as a risk as opposed to other people. An example would be driving. Some people
would perceive driving at high speeds as a risk, but others do not recognize it as a risk. As a
result, the individual will be unable to perceive the situation as an event with a possible loss or
gain. According to Rogers, perception is individual and personal. Age is also a problem when it
comes to identifying risks. Most studies point out that adolescents perceive risks differently than
adults (Reyna & Farley, 2006). Perception of risks can vary because of different individual
experiences. This is the reason why identification of risks, especially in complex situations
(radiation, poisoning) is not reliable (Perrow, 1984). It is also important to look at how
adolescents differ in risk taking perception compared to adults.
ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS: BIOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING RISK TAKING
BEHAVIOR
External factors play an important role in risk taking behavior, but other psychologists
such as Freud believe that biological factors play a much more important role than external
10A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
factors. Even other psychologists who acknowledge the importance of external factors emphasize
the role of biological factors in personality development. Jung believes that people are not only
motivated by repressed experience, but by experiences passed on by ancestors as well (Feist &
Feist, 2010). Maslow, a humanistic psychologist, argues that self-actualization which is the
growth of psychological health, is attained through satisfying lower levels needs such as hunger,
love and esteem (Feist & Feist, 2010). Although Maslow believes people have the capacity to
actualize and interact with the world, he does not disregard some tenets of psychoanalysis and
behaviorism, which focused more on biological aspects of the individual.
Whether the weight of biological factors is heavy or not, its influence must not be
disregarded. Biological factors can partly explain why risk taking behavior occurs more
frequently in teens. Teenagers use more frontal lobe activity during complex and demanding
tasks than adults. Adults distribute their workload more evenly throughout the brain. This
prevents overload of the frontal cortex (Sabbagh, 2006). Although teens have the same basic
reasoning skills as adults, sophistication of cognitive skills (planning ahead, understanding
consequences of a decision) don’t fully develop until late adolescence or young adulthood
(Steinberg, 2008). A study titled, A Neurobehavioral Model: Puberty, Brain Maturation, and the
Development of Self-Control over Behavior and Emotion in Adolescence ( Dahl, 2008) found
out that a pattern of neural connections among cognitive processes and pursuit of long term goals
undergo re-organization during adolescence. Adolescents are faced with new challenges which
require them to survey certain situations, if cognitive skills and pursuit of long term goals are not
developed yet, this may cause adolescents to engage in risk taking behavior. It is clear that
biological factors can influence risk taking behavior but majority of psychologists are convinced
that social factors play an important role as well.
11A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS: PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS AFFECTING RISK TAKING
BEHAVIOR
Adolescents are no worse than adults at perceiving risk or estimating their
vulnerability to it (Reyna & Farley, 2006), and increasing the salience of the risks associated
with making a potentially dangerous decision has comparable effects on adolescents and adults
(Millstein & Halpern-Felsher, 2002). The conclusion drawn by many researchers that
adolescents are as competent decision makers as adults are, may hold true only under conditions
where the impudence of psychosocial factors is minimized. Risk taking may be heightened in
adolescence because teenagers spend so much time with their peers, and the mere presence of
peers makes the rewarding aspects of risky situations more salient by activating the same
circuitry that is activated by exposure to non-social rewards when individuals are alone. Adults
on the other hand, are less likely to be influenced by peers than adolescents. According to Erik
Erikson (1982), individuals may develop defiant behavior (rebelling against authority) during
adolescence. There is a tendency for adolescents to stubbornly detest socially unacceptable
beliefs and practices just because the beliefs are simply unacceptable (Feist & Feist, 2010).
Rebelling against authority may lead to risk taking behavior. Adults on the other hand are usually
the authority figures in the household, thus they may be less likely to engage in risk taking
behavior. Adolescence, according to Erikson (1982), is a time of finding one’s identity. At this
stage, individuals do not have clear principles and convictions, since they are still finding these
during adolescence. If certain convictions and principles within an individual are not established,
12A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
the individual is not equipped with a rigid basis for decision making. This can lead to rash
decision making and risk taking behavior. If risk taking behavior is increased by social factors, it
can also be reduced by social factors as well. Involvement in a certain institution is an example
of social influence. It is stated that Religion is an important social institution. A number of
studies have looked into the relation of risk taking and religion, specifically in adolescents
(Johnson, Bachman, & O’Malley, 1976-1995; Donahue & Benson, 1995; Damon, 2000;
Donelson, 1999; Grant et al., 2000; Smith, 2005; Steele, 1989)
ADOLESCENSCE: RISK TAKING BEHAVIOR AND RELIGION
Despite the observation that many youth are not as engaged in religion compared to the
older generation, it appears that even unreflective involvement with religion can reduce risk
taking behaviour. A study ( Sinha, Cnaan & Gelles, 2007) found out that religiosity variables
were significantly associated with reduced risk behaviours when controlling for family
background variables and self-esteem. Younger teens, compared to older teens, reported higher
rates of weekly religious attendance but similar rates of the importance of religion in their lives.
In addition, a relatively consistent proportion of youth (three in ten) reported that religion played
a very important role in their lives (Johnson, Bachman, and O’Malley (1976-1995). However far
more youth report that religion is just “important” in their lives (Sinha, Cnaan & Gelles, 2007).
These sources combined indicate that today’s teens are more exposed to organized religion than
is often assumed. However, it must also be considered that religion is not the only force shaping
behaviour. As such, organized religion and religious teaching are only a piecemeal of what
adolescents have to face and deal with. While religion can promote pro-social behaviour, teens
are constantly pressured by other factors (biological factors and peers) to engage in risk taking
behaviour. Therefore, further study is needed to solidify the influence of religion on risk taking
13A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
behaviour in the youth. Youth risk behaviours continues to trouble society, erode families, and
pose tremendous challenge to social services. Many studies suggest a negative connection
between memberships in faith communities and pro-social behaviour. Like teens benefit from
belonging to a religious group (Donahue & Benson, 1995; Donelson, 1999). Youth participation
in religiously-provided programs has been linked to positive ethnic identity formation,
relationships with role models, acquisition of school and work related skills, decreased stress,
and enduring positive relationships (Damon, 2000; Donelson, 1999; Grant et al., 2000; Smith,
2005; Steele, 1989). Teenagers and teens who reported being academically above average also
reported higher rates of religious attendance (Regnerus & Elder, 2003). These studies stack up
considerable evidence showing an association between the perception of God or religion as
important, participation in religious activities, and decreased risk behaviours (Amey, Albrecht, &
Miller, 1996; Brownfield & Sorenson, 1991; Gorsuch, 1995; Kharari & Harmon, 1984; McBride,
Mutch, & Chitwood, 1996; Miller, Davies, & Greenwald, 2000). In addition, a study of 954
Australian teens (ages 15-19) indicated that youth who consider themselves highly religious were
less involved in behaviours that youth in the study classified as high-risk. Considerable evidence
shows that involvement in a religious community seems to exert on adolescent behaviour. Teens
who report that religion is important in their lives and who participate in organized worship and
religious activities will exhibit lower rates of risk behaviours. In Sinha, Cnaan and Gelles’ study,
the age of the teen was the most consistent and powerful explanation of risk involvement, where
engagement in risk behaviours increased with age, and a culture that encourages older teens to
experiment with new behaviours means that with each additional year of age, the chance of
engaging in risk behaviour increases. If the youth is exposed to religion at an early age, it may
moderate the increase of risk taking behaviour in individuals each year.
14A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
It is also possible that involvement with organized religion and perceived importance of
religion helped set clear boundaries for teens and teens are more accepting of limits when
boundary messages are consistent and well-grounded in more than one setting (Ianni, 1989). A
final possible explanation is that youth who value religion as important and are active with
religious congregations have parents who supervise them more closely and encourage them to
get involved with organized religion and thus contribute to their decreased risk activity (Cnaan,
Gelles, & Sinha, 2004). A lot of evidence highlights the importance of religiosity in decreasing
risk taking behaviour. Further study of the relationship between religiosity and risk taking
behaviour in adolescents will help understand the true value of religiosity.
15A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
METHODS
A. Research Participants
The participants will be composed of sixty second year psychology students from
the University of San Carlos.
B. Research Design
The researchers will hand out two different tests to each participant. The two
questionnaires will be the bases for correlating the two variables (religiosity and risk-
taking behaviors). The method for choosing the participants will be based on their
availability.
C. Research Instruments
The Religiosity Measure (Rohrbaugh & Jessor, 1975) is a questionnaire used to
evaluate the impact of religion on the respondent’s daily, secular life as well as to
determine the extent of individual participation in ritual practices (Bolvin). It is a reliable
test because it is intended to be applicable to religiosity in general. Moreover, no
particular religious affiliation is needed. It makes use of the four dimensions of religiosity
(Glock, 1959) namely ritual, consequential, ideological and experiential. It has two
multiple choice questions for each dimension. Each question is scored from zero (least
religiosity) to four (greatest religiosity). The “attendance at religious services” question is
categorized according to four meaningful breaks in the response distribution. Each
subscale has a maximum score of 8. Thirty- two is the maximum score for the entire
16A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
scale. It has a Cronbach coefficient alpha of over .90. This indicates high internal
consistency for the instrument (Scott, 1960).
The Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale developed by Weber, Blais,
and Betz (2002) is revised in order to be applicable to a wider range of ages, cultures, and
educational levels (Blais & Weber, 2006). This test looks at five subscales of risk-taking
(ethical, financial, health/safety, recreational and social). It is composed of a thirty item
test with values from one (indicating extremely unlikely) to seven (indicating extremely
likely). The DOSPERT test has an average Cronbach alpha of .74
In order to correlate the two variables (religiosity and risk-taking behavior), the
Pearson R correlation will tell the magnitude and direction of the association between
two variables that are on an interval or ratio scale (Archambault, 2000).
D. Research Procedure
1. Data Gathering
The proponents used convenience sampling but targeted second year psychology
students to gather the 60 required subjects for the study. Each participant answered two
questionnaires (the religiosity measure & DOSPERT scale). There was no specific time
allotted for both questionnaires. Participants returned the questionnaires whenever they
felt like returning them. All sixty participants returned the questionnaires within three
days. There were questions in the religiosity measure which were not answered properly
(How many times have you attended religious services during the past year?). These
questions were scored zero. For the DOSPERT Scale, some questions were left blank and
therefore also scored zero.
2. Data Analysis
17A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
The dimensions used in the religiosity measure were individually scored (e.g
ritualistic-8, consequential-5, ideological-6, and experiential-5). The score of each
dimension was then added. This is now the individual’s level of Religiosity. The second
questionnaire (DOSPERT scale) had thirty questions. Each question was scored from 1 to
7. The maximum score for the DOSPERT scale is 210. Like the religiosity measure, the
DOSPERT scale has different aspects of risk( dimensions for religiosity). Each aspect is
composed of 6 questions scattered among the 30 questions. The score of each aspect of
risk taking was indicated as well (e.g. ethical-31, financial-22, health/safety-15,
recreational-18, and social-24). Adding each risk taking aspect determines the
individual’s total score for risk taking behavior. After computing the scores of each
dimension of religiosity and aspects of risk taking, the researchers correlated these
variables (e.g. ritualistic dimension of religiosity correlated with ethical aspect of risk
taking). Aside from correlating each dimension of religiosity and aspect of risk taking,
level of religiosity and level of risk taking behavior was correlated as a whole. SPSS 14.0
student version was used to input and correlate the data gathered.
18A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
RESULTS
There was no significant correlation between levels of religiosity and level of risk
taking behavior as a whole, r=-.179. Even if there was no significant relationship between the
two variables, certain dimensions of religiosity were significantly correlated with certain aspects
of risk taking behavior. The consequential and ideological dimensions of religiosity were
significantly correlated to health and safety risk taking at .05 level, r=-.261, r=-318 respectively.
This indicates that having strong ideologies about religion (ideological) and knowing the
consequences of an individual’s action (consequential) can lead to lesser health/safety risk
taking. Furthermore, correlations between dimensions of religiosity were present. The
ritualistic dimension of religiosity was significantly correlated to the consequential dimension
of religiosity at .01 level, r=.373. This means attending religious services more often (ritualistic)
can lead to awareness of consequences (consequential) of an individual’s action. The
consequential dimension and ideological dimension were also positively correlated at .05 level,
r=.341 indicating a possibility that adequate knowledge of an individual’s religion (ideological)
may cause a person to be more wary of the consequences of the individual’s action
(consequential). The experiential dimension and consequential dimension were also
significantly correlated at .01 level, r=.382. This indicates a possibility that personal experiences
with a God(experiential) can affect how an individual look at consequences of a certain act.
Correlations between risk taking behavior aspects were found as well. Ethical risk
taking was significantly correlated to financial & health and safety risk taking at .01 level,
19A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
r=.455, r=.404, respectively. Ethical risk taking (moral principles of a person) may lead to
engaging in unprotected sex (health and safety) and betting (financial). Health and Safety risk
taking was significantly correlated to recreational and social risk taking at .01 level, r=.344,
r=.403, respectively. Finally, recreational risk taking was significantly correlated to social risk
taking at .01 level, r=.372.
20A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
21A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
LIMIT ATIONS
This study finds that there is no significant relationship between levels of religiosity and
risk taking behavior. The results of the study were derived from a sample size of 60. It must be
remembered that a smaller sample size can result in errors. A sample size of sixty is very
susceptible to those errors.
Some of the participants knew the nature of the study, so this may have contributed to
bias in their answers.
Another limitation is evident in the religiosity scale. Although the scale is acceptable for
all religions, it cannot be avoided that some questions bias a certain religion.
This study is only applicable to a select group of people who have a religion; therefore
people who do not have a religion may not be assessed in terms of their risk taking behavior.
Finally, the DOSPERT scale looks at certain kinds of risks only, and may exclude other
kinds of risk taking behavior, leading to inconsistencies in measuring risk taking.
Conclusion
This study concludes that risk taking behavior is not predicted by an individual’s level of
religiosity. This study also finds out that certain dimensions of religiosity affect risk taking
behavior, but its affect on risk taking as a whole is minimal. Another finding is that the
consequential dimension of religiosity is the most common variable which had significant
correlations with certain aspects of risk taking and dimensions of religiosity. This implies that
knowing the consequences of an action can be an indicator of changes in risk taking behavior
22A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
and levels of religiosity. In addition two possibilities can be derived from the study. First, the
“leave it all” to God attitude, wherein the individual takes the risk due to an individual’s full
belief in a God may still be possible because there was no significant negative correlation
between the two variables (levels of religiosity and risk taking behavior). Second, risk taking
may still be partly due to levels of religiosity but “the leave it all to God” attitude may have
contributed to inconsistencies in the results.
23A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
APPENDIX
Appendix A
Name (optional):
Age (required):
Instructions: The following questionnaire consists of seven multiple-choice items with one fill-in-the-blank item. Please answer the following questions by circling the appropriate letter for the multiple-choice items and providing the most accurate number for the fill-in-the-blank question.
1. How many times have you attended religious services during the past year? _______ times
2. Which of the following best describes your practice of prayer or religious meditation?a. Prayer is a regular part of my daily life.b. I usually pray in times of stress or need but rarely at any other time.c. I pray only during formal ceremonies.d. I never pray.
3. When you have a serious personal problem, how often do you take religious advice or teaching into consideration?
a. Almost alwaysb. Usuallyc. Sometimesd. Never
4. How much influence would you say that religion has on the way that you choose to act and the way that you choose to spend your time each day?
a. No influenceb. A small influencec. Some influenced. A fair amount of influencee. A large influence
5. Which of the following statements comes closest to your belief about God?a. I am sure that God really exists and that He is active in my life.b. Although I sometimes question His existence, I do believe in God and believe He
knows of me as a person.
24A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
c. I don’t know if there is a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind.
d. I don’t know if there is a personal God or a higher power of some kind, and I don’t know if I ever will.
e. I don’t believe in a personal God or in a higher power.6. Which one of the following statements comes closest to your belief about life after death
(immortality)?a. I believe in a personal life after death, a soul existing as a specific individual
spirit.b. I believe in a soul existing after death as a part of a universal spirit.c. I believe in a life after death of some kind, but I really don’t know what it would
be like.d. I don’t know whether there is any kind of life after death, and I don’t know if I
will ever know.e. I don’t believe in any kind of life after death.
7. During the past year, how often have you experienced a feeling of religious reverence or devotion?
a. Almost dailyb. Frequentlyc. Sometimesd. Rarelye. Never
8. Do you agree with the following statement? “Religion gives me a great amount of comfort and security in life.”
a. Strongly disagreeb. Disagreec. Uncertaind. Agreee. Strongly agree
25A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
Appendix B
Name (optional):
Age (required):
For each of the following statements, please indicate the likelihood that you would engage in the described activity or behavior if you were to find yourself in that situation. Provide a rating from Extremely Unlikely to Extremely Likely,
Using the following scale:
1- Extremely Unlikely2- Moderately Unlikely3- Somewhat Unlikely4- Not Sure5- Somewhat Likely6- Moderately Likely7- Extremely Likely
1. Admitting that your tastes are different from those of a friend. _____
2. Going camping in the wilderness. _____
3. Betting a day’s income at the horse races. _____
4. Investing 10% of your annual income in a moderate growth mutual fund. _____
5. Drinking heavily at a social function. _____
6. Taking some questionable deductions on your income tax return. _____
7. Disagreeing with an authority figure on a major issue. _____
8. Betting a day’s income at a high-stake poker game. _____
9. Having an affair with a married man/woman. _____
10. Passing off somebody else’s work as your own. _____
11. Going down a ski run that is beyond your ability. _____
12. Investing 5% of your annual income in a very speculative stock. _____
13. Going whitewater rafting at high water in the spring. _____
26A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
14. Betting a day’s income on the outcome of a sporting event. _____
15. Engaging in unprotected sex. _____
16. Revealing a friend’s secret to someone else. _____
17. Driving a car without wearing a seat belt. _____
18. Investing 10% of your annual income in a new business venture. _____
19. Taking a skydiving class. _____
20. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet. _____
21. Choosing a career that you truly enjoy over a more secure one. _____
22. Speaking your mind about an unpopular issue in a meeting at work. _____
23. Sunbathing without sunscreen. _____
24. Bungee jumping off a tall bridge. _____
25. Piloting a small plane. _____
26. Walking home alone at night in an unsafe area of town. _____
27. Moving to a city far away from your extended family. _____
28. Starting a new career in your mid-thirties. _____
29. Leaving your young children alone at home while running an errand. _____
30. Not returning a wallet you found that contains $200. _____
27A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
References
References
Blais, B. (2002), Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33-47. Retrieved from
http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06005.pdf
Cacioppo, J. T., & Brandon, M. E. (2002). Religious involvement and health: Complex
determinism. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 204-206.
Dahl, R., (2008). Biological, Developmental, and Neurobehavioral: Factors Relevant to
Adolescent Driving Risks, 278-284.Retrieved from
http://www.bocyf.org/AJPM_Teen_Driving_S278.pdf
Feist J., Feist G., (2010). Theories of personality, 249-263
Glock, C., (1959) the religious revival in America? In J. Zalus (Ed.) Religion and the
face of America: University of California Press. Retrieved from
http://phd.mshaffer.com/projects/religiosity/ReligiosityMeasure.pdf
Glock, C., &. Stark, J., (1965).PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO SCALE THE. GLOCK-
STARK DIMENSIONS
H.S., Thoresen, C.E., McCullough, M.E., & Larson, D.B. (1999). Spiritually and
religiously oriented health interventions. Journal of Health Psychology, 4,413-433
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1994). National survey results on
drug use from the Monitoring the Future study, 1975-1993
Kumar S et al. (2010).INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHARMACY.
150-156
Lenski, G., (1961). The Religious Factor: A Sociological Study of Religion's Impact on
Politics, Economics, and Family Life.
28A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
Miller, Miller & Stark (2000, 2002), RISK REFERENCES AND GENDER
DIFFERENCES 88-91 Retrieved from http://www.jeremyfreese.com/docs/Freese
%20%20risk%20preferences%20and%20gender%20differences%20in%20
religion.pdf
Pawlowski, B., Atwal, R., (2008). Sex Differences in Everyday Risk-Taking Behavior in
Humans, 50-138. Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep062942.pdf
Rohrbaugh, J., Jessor, R., (1975). Religiosity in youth: A Personal Control against
Deviant Behavior. Journal of personality, 43, 136-155. Retrieved from
http://phd.mshaffer.com/projects/religiosity/ReligiosityMeasure.pdf
Scott, W. A., (1960). Measures of homogeneity. Educational and psychological
measurements, 20, 751-757. Retrieved from
http://phd.mshaffer.com/projects/religiosity/ReligiosityMeasure.pdf
Shu, T., Sulaeman, J., Yeung, E., (2010). Local Religious Beliefs and Organizational
Risk-Taking Behaviors,1-53. Retrieved from
http://jsulaeman.cox.smu.edu/file/Papers/MutualFundReligion.pdf
Sinha, W., Cnaan, R., Gelles, R., (2007). Adolescent Risk Behaviors and Religion:
Findings from a National Study, pp. 1-25. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=spp_papers
&sei-redir=1#search=%22religious%20beliefs%20risk%20taking%22
Steinberg, L. Risk Taking in Adolescence: New Perspectives from Brain and Behavioral
Science, 55-59. Retrieved from
http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research/brainwaves/phpwebsite/files/uplink/
29A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity onthe Degree of Risk Taking Behavior on Second Year Psychology Students
Steinberg_07_AdolRisk.pdf
Trimpop, R., (1994).The Psychology of Risk Taking, pp. 2-19