SECOND NAIVITé SYMBOLIC.doc

Personality-profiles and religiosityLic. Peeters, Tim (Leuven, Belgium)Tefalpan2003yahoo.co.ukIntroductionIn psychology of religion, religiosity has been measured by the frequency of church-attendance or by measuring the belief in the existence of a transcendent reality. Whereas most world religions proclaim brotherly love to be the core of their religious message, history has shown us that religion has often been used as a justification of violence. This is probably the most important paradox within this research area. Some theoreticians even say religion is a major catalyst for prejudice, racism en so on. However Hutsebaut (1996; 1998; 2000) introduced a new approach to shed some light on the internal structure of religiosity, the above-mentioned paradox, and several other inconsistencies (Duriez, Soenens, & Beyers, 2003): the two-dimensional approach to religiosity (Duriez, 2002; Hutsebaut; Fontaine, Duriez, Luyten, & Hutsebaut, 2003). This model (Fontaine et al., 2003) is measured by the Post-Critical Belief Scale, PCB (Duriez, Fontaine & Hutsebaut, 2002; Hutsebaut, 1996) and is based on the heuristic model of Wulff (1991, 1997). After an intensive study of different approaches of religion in psychology, Wulff (1991, 1997) developed a heuristic model that attempts to summaries the approaches in two orthogonal bipolar dimensions. On the one hen, the vertical axis in this model is the dimension of Exclusion versus Inclusion of Transcendence. By this axis Wulff tried to capture the distinction whether or not a participant is religious or spiritual. Hence, inclusion of transcendence refers to the participation and belief in a transcendent reality. On the other hen, the horizontal axis, the Literal versus Symbolic dimension, refers to the way religious expression can be interpreted: a participant can make an interpretation in a literal or symbolic way. Hence, this dimension can be seen as a kind of cognitive comprehension: the way in which religious contents are processed. As a result four quadrants can be formulated (Figure 1). Each of these quadrants covers a specific way of approach to religion: Literal Affirmation, Literal Disaffirmation, Symbolic Affirmation (also called Reductive Interpretation), and Symbolic Disaffirmation (also called Restorative Interpretation). Figure 1Wulffs Model (1991, 1997)INCLUSIONLITERALAFFIRMATIONLITERALSYMBOLIC AFFIRMATIONSYMBOLICLITERALDISAFFIRMATIONSYMBOLIC DISAFFIRMATION EXCLUSIONParticipants in the first quadrant, Literal Affirmation, are persons who affirm the literal existence of a transcendent reality. Participants in the second quadrant, Literal Disaffirmation, are persons who deny the literal existence of a transcendent reality. People in these two quadrants can both be considered as fundamentalists. Participants who dont believe in a transcendent reality, but who nevertheless hold the possibility of a symbolic meaning of words, should be located in the third quadrant, Symbolic Disaffirmation. Finally, people in the last quadrant, Symbolic Affirmation, affirm the existence of a transcendent reality, but at the same time they try to encompass and transcend reductive interpretations in order to find a symbolic meaning that has personal relevance in the religious language. Hutsebaut (1996) constructed the Post-Critical Belief Scale (PCB) as an operationalisation of Wulffs heuristic model (1991). In this model there are four scales: Orthodoxy, External Critique, Relativism, and Second Naivit. These scales are considered to be equivalent to the four quadrants of Wulffs model, respectively Literal Affirmation, Literal Disaffirmation, Symbolic Affirmation, and Symbolic Disaffirmation. Duriez, Fontaine, & Hutsebaut (2000) have shown that the four scales of the PCB provide accurate measures of Wulffs model. Duriez, Soenens, & Beyers (2003), Fontaine et al. (2002) have shown that two dimensions, as in the above-mentioned proposition, are sufficient to explain the empirical relation between the items of the PCB. Figure 2 Hutsebauts Model (1991, 1999)INCLUSIONORTHODOXYLITERALSECOND NAIVITSYMBOLICEXTERNAL CRITIQUERELATIVISM EXCLUSIONEver since the earliest studies concerning individual differences in personality, psychologists of religion have examined the relationship between religiosity and personality. In the psychology of personality, two major models of personality have to be considered: the Three Factor Model of Eysenck & Eysenck (1968, 1985) and the Five Factor Model of Costa en McCrae (1978, 1992, 1995). In the Three Factor Model of Eysenck, three underlying dimensions explain personality: Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism (PEN). According to Costa & McCrae (1995), Eysenck (1998) and Eysenck & Eysenck (1985), Neuroticism is concerned with emotional instability, and includes elements such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and tension; Extraversion is a measure of sociability and impulsivity components; Psychoticism is concerned with a lack of impulse control. In the latter model, the so called Big Five of Personality, the Psychoticism factor has been divided into two factors: Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and there has been added a fifth factor, Openness to Experience. In this model Neuroticism reflects distinct ways of reacting emotionally to distressing situations. Extraversion reflects traits associated with energy and enthusiasm. Openness to Experience appraises responses to different kinds of experience. Agreeableness is presumed to measure different kinds of attitudes in relation to interpersonal interaction. Finally, Conscientiousness is considered to be the factor that measures differences between motivation and persistence (Costa & McCrae, 1978, 1992, 1995; Kosek, 1999, 2000; Saroglou, 2002; Saroglou & Hutsebaut, 2001). The NEO-FFI, which is used in this research, is a questionnaire and is designed to measure the Five Factor Model of Eysenck. Although most of these studies were exploratory in nature, the results were not always consistent, and the conclusions rather fragmented (Saroglou, 2002; Duriez & Soenens, 2002). Nevertheless some of the conclusions have been able to shed light on the relationship between religiosity and personality (Duriez & Soenens; 2002). Early studies about this relationship used the Three Factor Model (Eysenck, 1985). Eysenck & Eysenck (1968; 1985) confirmed in some way that different kinds of religiosity correspond to differences in personality traits. Although some studies (Chau, Johnson, Bowers, et al., 1990; DOnofrio, Eaves, Murelle, et al., 1999; Heaven, 1990; Robinson, 1990) failed to do so, other studies, in a variety of cultures and denominations, confirmed Eysencks finding. Religious people tend to score lower on Psychoticism (Francis, 1992a, 1992b, 1993; Francis & Katz, 1992; Francis & Perason, 1993; Francis & Wilcox, 1994; Lewis & Joseph, 1994; Lewis & Maltby, 1995, 1996; Maltby, 1999a, 1999b). Research concerning the other two dimensions resulted in inconsistent leading researchers to conclude that these factors are unrelated to religiosity (Eysenck, 1998; Francis, 1992b). Studies using the Five-Factor Model of personality produced a slightly different result. In many studies (see the meta-analysis of Saroglou, 2002; Kosek, 1999, 2000; Taylor & McDonald, 1999), religiousness is positively related to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, although these correlations are low (Saroglou, 2002) or sometimes even absent (Streyffeler & McNally, 1998; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998). This also confirms the hypothesis of the low correlation between Psychoticism and religion in the Three Factor Model. Although in most of the studies no significant relation between religion and other factors of the Five Factor Model (Saroglou, 2002) has been found, other studies suggest that religious people should be situated high on some of the other factors as well (Duriez, 2002; McCrae, 1999; Taylor & MacDonald, 1999). Religiosity was weakly correlated with Extraversion, and there was a small but significant effect size regarding Openness to Experience (Saroglou, 2002). Saroglou (2002) as well McCrae (1996; 1999) mentioned the complex but clear pattern of relation between religion and Openness to Experience. Participants who have high scores on Openness to Experience are associated with “open and mature religion” (Saroglou, 2002). Saroglou (2002) also mentioned the striking result that religious fundamentalists are associated with low Openness to Experience. This factor has to be examined in further research. However, one should take into consideration that most of the above-mentioned results have been found in studies in which researchers have been working with a uni-dimensional model. The innovative aspect of the Post-Critical Belief Scale is the proposed two-dimensional structure of religiosity. Although in line with previous research, where none of the five factors of personality correlate significantly with religiosity as it was measured by the Literal vs. Symbolic dimension, a significant correlation with Openness to Experience was found. This is in line with Duriez, Soenens, & Beyers (2003), McCrae (1996, 1999), McCrae, Zimmermann, Costa, & Bond, (1996), and Saroglou (2002) Duriez, Luyten, Snauwaert, Hutsebaut (2002), who expected Openness to Experience to be crucial in order to understand the relation between religiosity and personality. HypothesesAlthough, because the model of Hutsebauts is relatively new and, therefore not much research has been done, is formulating hypotheses a rather tentative business, we nevertheless tried to make at least some predictions. Based on the suggestions of McCrae (1996, 1999), and based on the meta-analysis of Saroglou (2002), in which they wrote that individuals who have high scores on Openness to Experience, have a more mature way of religious behaviour, we propose the hypothesis that individuals, who have a attitude toward religion in which a strong symbolic interpretation (Relativism and Second Naivit) can been found, are also characterised by a huge confidence in their selves and a great curiosity toward new experiences. This is also confirmed by research in which individuals with an open mind to religion, i.e. individuals who deal with religion in a personal and in a symbolic way, have a more or less open attitude in general (Duriez 2002; McCrae, 1999). Moreover, it has been proved that individuals who have and a strong symbolic interpretation-attitude toward religion (Relativism and Second Naivit) (Duriez, 2000; 2002) have less Need for Closure, what is linked to Openness to Experience. Therefore, we expect that individuals, who are situated in the Relativism- and Second Naivit-quadrants, score higher on Openness to Experience than those who are situated in the two other groups (Orthodoxy and External Critique).We expect the same pattern for the factor Agreeableness. We presuppose that individuals, who are dealing with religious texts on a very symbolic way (Relativism- and Second Naivit), score higher on the factor Agreeableness than those individuals who are situated in the other groups. Previous research suggested that this personality trait is correlated positively with liberal thinking (McCrae, 1999), as well with empathy (Duriez, 2002). Moreover, these two variables also correlate in a positive way with symbolic thinking. Based on the meta-analysis of Saroglou (2002) in which was mentioned that religious people have higher scores on Conscientiousness tan non-religious people, we propose the hypothesis that individuals who believe in a transcendent reality (Orthodoxy and Second Naivit) score higher on this factor than people who dont (External Critique and Relativism). Since the results of previous research on the factors Extraversion and Neuroticism were very inconsistent, we dont formulate any hypotheses concerning these two factors.MethodSampleParticipants were 336 students who attend higher education in Belgium, ranging in age from 19 to 26 with a mean of 20, and where 50% are female. All participants were Flemish-speaking and have Belgian nationality. Participation was not obligatory and no course credit was given. Anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed, in line with Belgian privacy laws. In this sample, 10.8% of the participants attend religious services regularly (at least once a month, compared to about 10% in the general Flemish population according to the Belgian Office of Church Statistics). Church is attended from time to time (less than once a month) by 22.6 % of the participants and hardly ever by 66.7% of the participants. In this sample, 87.2% of the parents of the participants are married and living together, almost 10% of the parents are divorced or in the middle of the divorce process, and 3.0% of the participants has lost one or both parents. Also in this sample, 96.7% of the participants had higher education, of which 78.9% did university studies. The educational level was high compared to that of the Flemish population due to the specific characteristics of the sample (students). MeasuresPost Critical Belief Scale As a religiosity measure, all participants completed the revised 33-item Post-Critical Belief Scale (Duriez et al., 2000; Hutsebaut, 1996). The PCB provides measures of Orthodoxy (e.g., Mary was a virgin, even if this is not compatible with modern thinking), External Critique (e.g., Religious faith is a sign of weakness), Relativism (e.g., Secular and religious conceptions of the world give valuable answers to important questions about life), and Second Naivit (e.g., The historical accuracy of the stories from the Bible is irrelevant for my belief in God ). The 33 items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1= completely opposed, 7= completely in agreement). Of these items, 8 try to capture Orthodoxy (O1, O2, O3, O4, O5, O6, O7 and O8), 9 items External Critique (E1, E2, E3, E4, E7, E8, E9, E10 and E11), 8 items Relativism (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R10 and R11) and another 8 items Second Naivit (S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9). The internal consistency (Cronbachs Alpha) of these four quadrants is for Orthodoxy, External Critique, Relativism and Second Naivit respectively .72 (M=2.02, SD = .81) .78 (M = 3.67, SD = .94), .61 (M = 5.10, SD = .76) and .76 (M = 4.28, SD = 1.09). However, Fontaine et al. (2003) have shown that the PCB also provides measures of the two basic religiosity dimensions Wulff (1991, 1997) identified (see above). In this way, the effects of being religious or not (Exclusion vs. Inclusion of Transcendence) can be disentangled from the way in which religious contents are dealt with (either in a literal or in a symbolic way). For the purpose of the present study, we decided to derive the two underlying dimensions of the PCB (Exclusion vs. Inclusion of Transcendence and Literal vs. Symbolic) by means of factor analysis (Varimax rotation) as well as the four subscales (cf. the procedure described by Duriez et al., 2000). A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was then carried out. A scree test (Cattell, 1966) pointed to a two-componential solution. However, since PCA allows freedom of rotation, the componential structures obtained in different samples cannot be compared straightforwardly. Therefore, this structure was subjected to an orthogonal rotation (Varimax rotation). Hence, these components could be interpreted as Exclusion vs. Inclusion of Transcendence and Literal vs. Symbolic respectively. Although the first part of the analysis was done by using the traditional unweighted sum of item scores, which indicated a two-factor solution proposed like the one in Duriez, Soenens, & Beyers (2003), the second part of the analysis was done by using factor scores. This guarantees reliability equal to or greater than the one that is obtained by using an unweighted sum of item scores (see Duriez, Soenens, & Beyers, 2003). An unweighted sum score does not allow items to contribute differentially to a construct. In contrast, factor scores allow some items to make a greater contribution to the construct than other items. In this way, they are based on all the items included in the Post-Critical Belief Scale instead of only on some of them. Hence, the scores that are derived to represent an individuals position in Wulffs model are not only more reliable but also more accurate. The construction of these weighted scores is described in Duriez, Soenens, & Beyers (2003). After a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out on these corrected scores, and a scree test (Cattell, 1966) pointed out a two-componential solution, the structure was subjected to an orthogonal Procrustes rotation (McCrae et al., 1996; Schonemann, 1966) towards the average structure reported by Fontaine et al. (2003). Although the Tuckers Phi indices were not calculated, these components could be interpreted as Exclusion vs. Inclusion of Transcendence and Literal vs. Symbolic respectively. Religiosity Scale As a second measure of religiosity, participants completed five items, which are all considered to be a classic way of measuring religiosity. A scale out of these five items was made in order to determine the best kind of measure. Although the internal consistency (Cronbachs Alpha) is .85, the correlation between this religiosity scale and the two PCB -dimensions is .65 (p .0001) for Inclusion versus Exclusion of Transcendence and .32 (p .0001) for Literal versus Symbolic. Therefore it can be concluded that this scale is not a good measure of religiosity. Moreover, this observation underlines the necessity of another and more accurate measurement. Personali