COUNSELING CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
The computer time for this project was supported in full by the facilities of Computer Science Center, University of Maryland, College Park.
COUNSELING CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
The Religious Orientation of College Students.
G. Diane Knight and William
E. Sedlacek
Two hundred fifty-four
freshmen at the University of Maryland, College Paris completed an anonymous
questionnaire designed to determine: 1) whether four categories of religious
orientation, i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, indiscriminately pro-religious,
and indiscriminately anti-religious, would provide a
meaningful description of religious motivation for a
heterogeneous sample of college students, a description unrelated tot he parochial
beliefs and institutional practices of Christianity; and 2) whether religious
orientation was related to two aspects of cognitive style, i.e., open vs.
closed mindedness (or dogmatism) and tolerance vs. intolerance for ambiguity.
The results provided limited support for the use of the religious orientation
scales with nonChristian groups. The writers suggest that the greater
disagreement by Jewish students with items on the intrinsic scale supports the
contention that this scale reflects a parochial bias of Christianity. The
relationship between religious orientation and cognitive style was found to
hold for dogmatism, but not for intolerance for ambiguity.
2
Religion has often been a
variable of interest to researchers who wish to describe and understand the
experience of college students. In the past, most such research has focused on
religious beliefs and practices (cf. review by Parker, 1971), or has attempted
to describe changes. in such- beliefs and practices over the course of
the college. experience (Hasting & Hoge, 1976; Hunsberger, 1978). Recent.
research that looks specifically at the religious life of college students has
been limited, however. ..Religious researchers seem to have heeded the advice
of Dittes (1969), and-turned their. attention to the homogeneous
populations of specific religious traditions, e.g., Catholics (Thompson, 1974;
Kahoe, 1976), Protestants (Hood, 1978; King 1967), Baptists (Feagin, 1964;
Hood, 1971), and others. Such studies attempted to. define and measure .religious
variables using subjects--who were expected to be. “religious"
to discover what it was that was "religious" about them. .Although
the results of such, studies were limited in their, generalizability, they have
provided rich data about the religious: orientation, beliefs, practices, and
attitudes of persons identified with institutional religion, and have.
suggested ways of understanding the religious aspects. of personality that:
exist apart from institutional involvement.
Other research utilizing college
students (e.g., Mood, 1970; Bateson, Naifeh,,& Pate, 1978) has tended to be
limited in two ways. First, it has not taken account of the developmental
issues of the age group. As a result, such studies have tended to find either
conservative beliefs or anti-religious attitudes (Dittes, 1969). Perry
(1970) has suggested that the beliefs and attitudes of college students must be
considered in relation to the cognitive development of late adolescence.
Students may hold similar views, but in very dif ferent ways, depending on
their cognitivedevelopment. Second, research on
3
college students has primarily added to the
literature about beliefs defined in orthodox conservative terms. Certainly this
has been useful for understanding the nature of institutional practices and
orthodox beliefs, but it has failed to tap what many religious leaders would
consider an important aspect of religion -- the function of religion in a
person's life.
Since current research on
the religious interest of college students is scarce, the present study was
undertaken to describe the role of religion in the life of students at one
large metropolitan university. It seemed important that any attempt to
understand the religious attitudes of college students consider the manner in
which such attitudes were held rather than just the content of religious
beliefs and practices, and also consider the function of religion in a person's
life. The concept of religious orientation first conceived by Allport (1963;
Allport & Ross, 1967) and developed by numerous others (Feagin, 1964; Hood,
1970, 1971; Wilson, 1960; King & Hunt, 1969) offered a relevant framework
for understanding religion in this way.
The Concept of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religious
Orientation
Allport proposed two
religious orientations --intrinsic and extrinsic (IE). Extrinsic
religion was defined as "utilitarian exploitation of religion to provide
comfort, status, or needed crutches in one's encounter with life," and
intrinsic religion was defined as, "life wholly oriented, integrated, and
directed by the master value of religion" (All-port, 1968:141).
Although Allport's definitions were clearly value-laden and reflected a
conservative Christian perspective, considerable research has utilized both his
concepts and the Religious Orientation Scale (R.O.S.) that he developed to
measure it (cf. review by Hunt & King, 1971). In the process, the I-E
concepts have been refined and redefined, evolving to a point where a person
with an extrinsic
4
orientation may be defined as one who "subordinates
and tailors religious practices and beliefs to the satisfaction of personal
motives," and the person with an intrinsic religious orientation as one
who "subordinates and tailors personal motives and practices to the
precepts of religion (Dittes, 1971:86). As a personality variable defined in
this way, religious orientation should be a useful way to understand the
religious attitudes of the heterogeneous western population regardless of
religious tradition or affiliation.
From Allport's perspective, intrinsic
and extrinsic orientations represented different ends of a continuum.
Subsequent research, particularly that by Feagin (1964), King (1967), Hood
(1970, 1971, 1978), and Thompson (1974), suggested that I-E orientations
represented two separate dimensions rather than a continuums, and argued that
four religious orientations: intrinsic, extrinsic, indiscriminately pro-religious,
and indiscriminately anti-religious-- would better describe
the personality variable under examination. The use of four religious
orientations seemed appropriate for our purposes.
Focus of the Study
This study considered two
hypotheses concerning the religious orientation of college students.
First, we supposed that the expanded four categories
of religious orientation would provide a meaningful description of religious
motivation for a heterogeneous sample of college students; a description that
was unrelated to the parochial beliefs or institutional practices of
Christianity; i.e., regardless of whether students identified with Catholicism,
Protestantism, Judaism, some other religious tradition, or preferred no
religious Identification. Although this was inconsistent with the
interpretation of findings
with Buddhist (Patrick,1979) and Unitarian
(Strickland & Weddell, 1972)
5
subjects, it was consistent with the suggestion that
intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations reflected a basic personality
construct of the, sort discussed by Dittes (1971).
Second, we expected religious orientation to be-related to two aspects of cognitive style: open vs. closed-mindedness and tolerance vs. intolerance for ambiguity. Specifically, we expected to replicate the results of Thompson (1974) who found that adolescents, with indiscriminately anti--religious and intrinsic religious orientations exhibited less dogmatism, i.e., more open-mindedness, than other religious orientations and that indiscriminately pro-religious adolescents exhibited the most dogmatism and therefore a closed-minded cognitive style in relation to the world.. This latter expectation would be in 1ine with Allport and Ross' (1967) finding that this group was score prejudiced. Finally, since intolerance for ambiguity has been found to correlate with prejudice (Martin & Westie, 1959) and with an extrinsic religious orientation (King & Hunt, 1972), we expected the indiscriminately pro-religious and the extrinsic religious orientations to exhibit less tolerance for ambiguity than the other two religious orientations.
A representative sample of
254 freshmen students completed an anonymous questionnaire at the University of
Maryland, College Park. Most students were 17 or 18 years of age (42% and 56%
respectively); 49% were male and 51% were female. Reported religious preference
indicated a sample that was 34% Catholic, 25% Protestant, 21% Jewish, 4%
"Other," and 16% "None." Most students preferred the
religious tradition in which they were reared.
The questionnaire consisted of three sets of scales: the I-E scales factorially derived by Feagin (1964) to assess intrinsic and extrinsic orientation; the short-form 20-item version of Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale developed by Troldahl & Powell (1965); and the Intolerance for Ambiguity Scale developed by Martin and Westie (1959). The order in which the items were presented was determined randomly to reduce response set bias. To increase the generality of the items on the I-E scales and therefore their relevance to the heterogeneous college population, the wording of several items was modified, e.g., "church" was changed to "religious group." The I-E scales were scored to form four religious orientations using the method suggested by Hood (1970). The items for each of the scales are shown in Tables 1-4.
The internal consistency of the four scales was measured using Chronbach's ALPHA which yielded reliability coefficients as follows: E-Scale = .61, I-scale - 70, Intolerance for Ambiguity Scale = .72, and the Dogmatism Scale = .70. Item-to-total correlations are shown in Tables 1-4.
Data were analyzed using
analysis of variance and Newman-Keuls post hoc tests at the .05 level.
9
The overall test of
significance for religious preference on cognitive style was not significant,
nor was there a significant interaction of religious preference and religious
orientation on cognitive style.
The results of this study
provided limited support for the supposition that the four categories of
religious orientation would provide a meaningful description of religious
motivation for a heterogeneous sample of college students.
As expected, those students
with no religious preference tended to be classified ass indiscriminately anti-religious
While their consistent disagreement with items on the I-S scales
may have reflected a response set bias or an adolescent rebellion against
religious institutions, the fact that 88% of those students who indicated no
religious preference also indicated that they were not reared within a
particular religion suggested a consistent disavow of religious motivation. It
is worth noting that 38% of those students classified ,as anti-religious
endorsed a belief in "a personal God," and 20% believed in a
"Supreme Being" (Knight Sedlacek, 1981). Even though such students
tended to be unmotivated to use religion in their lives, they had fairly traditional
beliefs about God. Such findings seemed to support Thompson's (1974) suggestion
that the indiscriminately anti-religious may have been more discerning
than indiscriminate in their rejection of items on the intrinsic and extrinsic
scales.
The interpretation of
results for the Jewish students suggested that the intrinsic scale offered
items that may not have been relevant for Judaism. Very few Jewish students
were classified as intrinsic (19%), or indiscriminately pro-religious (20%),
categories reflecting agreement with items on the intrinsic scale. Also, many
Jewish students (44%) were classified as anti
10
religious indicating disagreement with items on both
scales. Jewish students did seem to find items on the extrinsic e-scale
somewhat relevant, though since 27% of Jewish respondents were classified as
extrinsic, indicating agreement on the extrinsic scale.
The results for Jewish students and those in the "None" category suggested that religious orientation as a personality variable may best be understood as a learned phenomenon. This is particularly evident in the difficulty which these non-Christian groups had pith the intrinsic scale. In this sense, the results reflect real differences between the religious traditions. Catholics and Protestants were more likely to view the pietistic practices which dominated the intrinsic scale as viable ways to organize experience.
Such results support the
contention that at least the intrinsic concept as it is operationalized by this
scale reflects the parochial bias of Christianity. Further research is
necessary to determine whether this is an artifact of the measurement scale or
an accurate assessment of the intrinsic concept.
Although the non Christian
groups found less agreement; with the intrinsic scale, this difference among
religious traditions did hot account for a significant amount of variance in
dogmatism. Religious motivation seed more a reflection of such cognitive
variables as open-mindedness than a reflection of institutional religious
background. Such an interpretation is consistent with the findings of
Pargament, Steele & Tyler (1979) Who found that institutional religions
identification of Protestant, Catholics and Jewish subjects was not
significantly related to psychosocial competence, while intrinsic religious
motivation was.
Much of the research on
religious orientation assumes that religious orientation reflects a stable
personality construct. Such an assumption may not be valid with the late
adolescent population measured in this study.
Recent theories of cognitive (Parry, 1970) and moral
development (Kohlberg, Turrel, 1973) suggest that religious orientation and
cognitive style relate to developmental stages rather than cohesive personality
constructs. Meyer (1977) found that intellectual development could be measured
cross-sectionally by analyzing the religious beliefs of students. His
work was based on Perry's assumption that similar beliefs may be held in
different ways at different stages of intellectual development. For instance,
in the early stages of dualism, beliefs are unconsidered and dogmatic, while at
the later stage of committment beliefs are chosen after examination and the
student is open to others choosing differently. The relationship between religious
orientation and dogmatism found in. this study seemed consistent with this
developmental scheme. Students with a pro-religious orientation were the
most dogmatic and their pro-religious orientation reflected an
unconsidered endorsement or religious precepts in spite of their
contradictions. Those students with less dogmatic anti-religious and
intrinsic religious orientations may be at a later stage of intellectual.
development. The need for longitudinal research is obvious to determine if the religious orientation of college
students changes over time. However, such longitudinal research must consider
not only the content of religious beliefs and practices, but also the way in
which such beliefs are held and the role which religion plays in the structure of
the personality.
12
Allport,
G.W. Behavioral science, religion and mental health. Journal of Religion and
Health, 1963, 2, 187-197.
The Person in Psychology. Boston: Beacon Press,
1968.
Allport,
G.W. & Ross, J.M. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 432-443.
Bateson, C.D., Naifeh, S.J., & Pate, S. Social desirability,
religious orientation, and racial prejudice. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion. 1978, 17, 31-41.
Dittes,
J.E. Psychology of Religion. In G. Lindsey & Aronson (ads.) Handbook of
Social Psychology, 2nd ed. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1969.
Two issues in measuring religion. In M. Strommen
(Ed.), Research on Religious Development. N.Y.: Hawthorns, 1971.
Feagin,
J.R. Prejudice and religious types: A focused study of Southern
fundamentalists. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1964, 4,
3-13.
Hastings,
P.K. & Hoge, D.R. Changes in religion among college students, 1948 to 1974.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1976, 15, 237-249.
Hood,
R.W. Religious orientation and the report of religious experience. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1970, 9, 285-291.
A comparison of the Allport and Feagin
scoring procedures for intrinsic/extrinsic religious
orientation.
Journal. for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1971, 10, 370-374
The Usefulness of the indiscriminately pro and anti
categories of religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 1978, 17 , 419-431.
Hunsberger,
B. The religiosity of college students: Stability and change over years at
university. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion., 1978, 17, 159-164.
Hunt,
R.A. & King, M. The intrinsic-extrinsic concept: A review and
evaluation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1971, 10, 339-356.
Kahoe,
R.D. Comment on Thompson's "Openmindedness and indiscriminately anti-religious
orientation." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1976,
15, 91-93.
King,
M.B. Measuring the. religious variable: Nine proposed dimensions. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1967, 6, 173-190.
13
King,
M.B. & Hunt, R.A. Measuring the religious variable: Amended findings. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1969, 8, 321-323.
Measuring the religious
variable: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
1972, 11,
240-251.
Knight, and Sedlacek, W.E. Religious orientation and
the concept of God held by university students. Counseling Center Research
Report # 7-81, University of Maryland, College, Park, 1981,.
Kohlberg,
L. & Turrel, B. (Edo.) Recent Research in Moral Development. New
York: Halt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
Martin,
J.G. & Westie, F.R. The tolerant personality. 'American Sociological
Review, 1959, 24, 251-258.
Meyer,
P. Intellectual development: Analysis of religious content. The Counseling
Psychologist, 1977, 6, 47-50.
Pargament,
K.I., Steeple, R.E., & Tyler, F.B. Religious participation, religious
motivation anal individual psychosocial competence. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 1979, 18, 412-419.
Parker,
C.A. Changes in religious beliefs of college students. In M. Strommen (Ed.). Research
on Religious Development, Flew York: Hawthorne, 1971.
Patrick,
J.W. Personal faith and the fear of death among divergent religious
populations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1979, 18,
298-305.
Perry,
G.P. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years,
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1970.
Strickland,
B.R. & Weidell, S.C. Religious orientation, racial prejudice, and
dogmatism: A study of Baptists and Unitarians. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 1972, 11, 395-399.
Thompson,
A.D. Open-mindedness and indiscriminately, Antireligious orientation. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1974, 13, 471-477.
Troldahl,
V.C. & Powell, F.A. A short-form Dogmatism Scale for use in field
studies. Social Forces, 1965, 4.4, 211-214.
Wilson,
W.C. Extrinsic religious values and prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 286-288.
14
|
Table 1: Extrinsic Scale* (E-Scale) |
|
|
Item |
Item-Total Correlation |
|
10. The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and
peaceful life. |
0.44 |
|
27. The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and
protection. |
0.36 |
|
32. What religion
offers most is comfort when sorrow and misfortune strike. |
0.29 |
|
36. A religious group is most important as a place to
formulate good social relationships.** |
0.39 |
|
43. One reason for my being a member of a religious group
is that such membership helps to establish a person in the community.** |
0.23 |
|
47. Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in
exactly the same way as my citizenship, friendships, and other memberships
do. |
0.34 |
Chronbach's
alpha = .61
* Items factorially derived by Feagin
(1964)
** The wording of these items was modified
in order to increase relevance of item to a non-Christian religious
group.
Items
scored so that 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree
15
|
Table 2: Intrinsic* Scale (I Scale) |
|
|
Item |
Item-Total Correlation |
|
4.If not prevented by unavoidable circumstances, I attend
religious services at least once a week or oftener, two or three times a
month, once every month or two, rarely, never.** |
0.46 |
|
8.I read literature about my faith (or religious group)
frequently, occasionally, rarely, never.** |
0.48 |
|
16. The prayers I say when I am alone carry as much
meaning and personal emotion as those said by me during services . |
0.17 |
|
26. I try hard, to carry my religion over into all my
other dealings in life. |
0.59 |
|
33. My religions beliefs sire what really lie behind my
whole approach to life. |
0.52 |
|
40. It is important to me to spend periods of time in
private thought and meditation. |
0.47 |
Chronbach's
alpha a .70
* Items factorially derived by Feagin
(1964) .:- .
**
The wording of these items was modified in order to increase the relevance of
item to a non-Christian religious group,.
16
|
Table 3: Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale* |
|
|
Item |
Item-Total Correlation |
|
15. There is only one right way to do anything. |
0.45 |
|
23.You can classify almost all people as either honest or
crooked. |
0.52 |
|
25. A person is either a 100% American or he isn't. |
0.41 |
|
30. It doesn't take very long to find out if you can trust
a person. |
0.27 |
|
35. There are two kinds of women: the pure and the bad. |
0.5 |
|
39. A person either knows the answer to a question or he
doesn't. |
0.4 |
|
45. There are two kinds of people in the world: the weak
and the strong. |
0.51 |
Chronbach's
alpha = .72 ,
* Martin & Westie (1959)
17
|
Table 4 |
||
|
Item-Total Correlation |
Item # |
Short Form of Rokeach's
Dogmatism Scale* |
|
0.29 |
22 |
In this complicated, world of ours the only way we can
know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. |
|
0.07 |
24 |
My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to
admit he's wrong. |
|
0.4 |
28 |
There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are
for the truth and those who are against the truth. |
|
0.44 |
29 |
Most people just don't know what's good for them. |
|
0.39 |
31 |
Of all the different philosophies which exist in this
world there is probably only one which is correct. |
|
0.18 |
18 |
The highest form of government is a democracy and the
highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most
intelligent. |
|
0.27 |
34 |
The main thing in life is for a person to want to do
something important. |
|
0.2 |
37 |
I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how
to solve my personal problems. |
|
0.2 |
38 |
Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth
the paper they are printed on. |
|
0.41 |
41 |
Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. |
|
0.3 |
42 |
It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or
cause that life becomes meaningful. |
|
0.25 |
44 |
Most people just don't give a "damn" for others. |
|
0.45 |
46 |
To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous
because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. |
|
0.07 |
9 |
It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's
going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects. |
|
0.32 |
17 |
The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is
only the future that counts. |
|
0.26 |
19 |
The United States and Russia have just about nothing in
common. |
|
0.25 |
21 |
In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself
several times to make sure I am being understood. |
|
0.21 |
11 |
While I don't like to admit this even .to myself, my
secret ambition is to become a great man; like Einstein, or Beethoven, or
Shakespeare. |
|
0.27 |
12 |
Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately
necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. |
|
0.21 |
14 |
It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward. |
* Troldahl & Powell, 1965.
**
Chronbach's Alpha = .70 -
19
|
Table 5: Mean Dogmatism and Intolerance for
Ambiguity Scores by Religious Orientation of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish
Students |
||||
|
Religious Orientation |
Dogmatism* |
Intolerance for Ambiguity |
||
|
|
Mean |
S.D. |
Mean |
S.D. |
|
Pro-religious (N=64) |
2.98 |
0.43 |
2.48 |
0.68 |
|
Intrinsic (N=38) |
2.85 |
0.36 |
2.43 |
0.64 |
|
Extrinsic (N=34) |
2.83 |
0.37 |
2.25 |
0.56 |
|
Anti-Religious (N=60) |
2.73 |
0.38 |
2.31 |
0.55 |
*MANOVA
F,6,366 = 2.50, p .022
+