Thesis (Subject To 1st Draft)

1
A Study on the Effect of Level of Religiosity on the 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
2
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-
3
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
4
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 OMalley (1993) at the University of Michigans 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 individuals level of religiosity and the degree of risk-taking behavior, and also to know the role of an
5
individuals 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
6
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 individuals religious orientation represents a deep core of religiosity which is related to a persons 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).
7
With the growing number of studies supporting religiositys 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 religiositys dimensionality but almost all of them trace back to Glock and Starks (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
8
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 individuals 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
9
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
10
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) dont 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.
11
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 ones 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,
12
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, & OMalley, 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 OMalley (1976-1995). However far more youth report that religion is just important in their lives (Sinha, Cnaan & Gelles, 2007). These sources combined indicate that todays 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
13
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.
14
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.
15
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 risktaking 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 respondents 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
16
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
17
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 individuals 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 individuals 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.
18
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 individuals 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 individuals action. The consequential dimension and ideological dimension were also positively correlated at .05 level, r=.341 indicating a possibility that adequate knowledge of an individuals religion (ideological) may cause a person to be more wary of the consequences of the individuals 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,
19
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.
20
21
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 individuals 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
22
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 individuals 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.
23
APPENDIX Appendix A Name (optional): Age (required):
Instructions: The following questionnaire consists of seven multiple-choice items with one fillin-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 always b. Usually c. Sometimes d. 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 influence b. A small influence
24
c. Some influence d. A fair amount of influence e. 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. c. I dont know if there is a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind. d. I dont know if there is a personal God or a higher power of some kind, and I dont know if I ever will. e. I dont 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 dont know what it would be like. d. I dont know whether there is any kind of life after death, and I dont know if I will ever know. e. I dont 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 daily b. Frequently c. Sometimes d. Rarely
25
e. Never 8. Do you agree with the following statement? Religion gives me a great amount of comfort and security in life. a. Strongly disagree b. Disagree c. Uncertain d. Agree
e. Strongly agree
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 nd yourself in that situation. Provide a rating from Extremely Unlikely to Extremely Likely, Using the following scale: 1- Extremely Unlikely 2- Moderately Unlikely 3- Somewhat Unlikely 4- Not Sure 5- Somewhat Likely 6- Moderately Likely
26
7- Extremely Likely 1. Admitting that your tastes are different from those of a friend. _____ 2. Going camping in the wilderness. _____ 3. Betting a days 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 gure on a major issue. _____ 8. Betting a days income at a high-stake poker game. _____ 9. Having an affair with a married man/woman. _____ 10. Passing off somebody elses 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. _____
14. Betting a days income on the outcome of a sporting event. _____ 15. Engaging in unprotected sex. _____ 16. Revealing a friends 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. _____
27
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. _____
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
28
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. GLOCKSTARK 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.
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
29
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/
Steinberg_07_AdolRisk.pdf Trimpop, R., (1994).The Psychology of Risk Taking, pp. 2-19

Thesis (Subject To 1st Draft)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis (Subject To 1st Draft)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

University of San Carlos Department of Psychology Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City

APPENDIX Appendix A Name (optional): Age (required):

Steinberg_07_AdolRisk.pdf Trimpop, R., (1994).The Psychology of Risk Taking, pp. 2-19

You might also like