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


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-


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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.


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,


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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,


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.



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


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.


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.


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


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. _____


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. _____


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.


http://www.bocyf.org/AJPM_Teen_Driving_S278.pdf

http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06005.pdf


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


Scott, W. A., (1960). Measures of homogeneity. Educational and psychological

measurements, 20, 751-757. Retrieved from


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/

http://jsulaeman.cox.smu.edu/file/Papers/MutualFundReligion.pdf



http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep062942.pdf


Steinberg_07_AdolRisk.pdf

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

Documents

Thesis (Subject to 1st Draft) (2)