It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Childs’ experiment featured 400 students drawn from introductory economics classes at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan. After providing basic biographical information, they were paired off and assigned to play the role of either “sender” or “receiver.”
Senders were informed that the pair would receive a total of two payments: $5 and $15 in some cases, $5 and $7 in others. They would receive one of the amounts, while the receiver collected the other.
They were then told to send a message to the receiver, who sat in a nearby room, informing him or her of which payoff was greater. The receiver would presumably then choose to take the more lucrative one, leaving the sender stuck with the lower amount. Unless, of course, he or she chose to fib.
So who lied for personal financial gain?
We find that sex, age, grade point average, student debt, size of return, socioeconomic status, and average time spent in religious observation are not related to the decision to lie. A subject’s major of study, the marital status of their parents, whether or not they were raised by a single parent, religious importance and whether or not the subjects came to collect their pay were important explanatory variables.
• Those for whom religion was more important to their lives. “This is surprising,” Childs writes, as most religions “promote honesty as a virtue. It may be that students for whom religion was important feel separate from other students at this largely secular university,” and thus feel less compelled to be honest with them.
Childs’ experiment featured 400 students drawn from introductory economics classes at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan. After providing basic biographical information, they were paired off and assigned to play the role of either “sender” or “receiver.”
Are you saying the money was not real?
FlyersFan
It was role playing in a college classroom of 400 students.
So it was make believe and not real world.
Even though I am atheist
Among those more likely to lie for financial gain were:
• Business majors. “It could be that these students are more prone to lying by nature or training,” Childs writes. “It could also be that individuals strongly motivated by financial returns, and therefore more likely to lie for a monetary payoff, are more likely to pursue an education in business.” (Previous research has found higher levels of academic cheating among business majors.)
www.psmag.com...
• Students whose parents were divorced. This is in line with expectations, in that past research has found children of divorce are more likely to engage in anti-social behavior. Perhaps the belief they’ve been cheated out of a happy childhood may lead them to feel cheating is OK.
I read your referenced article.
IT IS A VERY FLAWED STUDY EXACTLY AS I NOTED
REGARDING
INTRINSIC VS EXTRINSIC.
IT IS FLAWED--REGARDLESS OF THE PROCLAIMED FINDINGS.
I don't have any trouble believing the findings as stated. They are quite plausible.
They simply CANNOT MEAN what seems to be the implications desired by the authors . . . and you . . .
BASED ON THAT research.
That's just a fact. The research does NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT
those persons classed as VERY RELIGIOUS are
AS A GROUP
RELIABLY PREDICTED
TO BE MORE DEPRESSED
THAN THOSE NOT VERY RELIGIOUS.
Such assertions are NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE
"VERY RELIGIOUS" IS A CONFABULATED MIXED VARIABLE
WHEREIN
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTRINSIC VERY RELIGIOUS VS THE EXTRINSIC VERY RELIGIOUS.
THEREFORE,
The contaminating factors from the EXTRINSICALLY VERY RELIGIOUS CLEARLY TRASHES TO WHATEVER DEGREE
THE BENEFICIAL CORELATES OF THE INTRINSICALLY VERY RELIGIOUS.
Wishful thinking trying to make such studies into a wholesale trashing of the benefits of INTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY
IS SIMPLY INACCURATE, UNTRUE . . . . at some point, when faced with the contrary data . . . it may be disingenuous or even dishonest.
This is a 40 year old topic with me. I have no trouble with solid research and the accurate findings of solid research.
Much that goes for religiosity IS destructive.
THAT'S just NOT the WHOLE story.
This is NOT THAT difficult to understand. Sigh.
www.zimbio.com...
Emphases added:
Modern I-E scales are set up so that I and E are thought of as separate constructs where individuals score along two separate dimensions (i.e., low E to high E and low I to high I). Research has identified many negative correlates of high E (e.g., narcissism, guilt, fear of death, aggression, etc.).
Current work in the psychology of religion is characterized by the assumption that measuring religiosity as a unitary construct produces misleading results. Instead, the field has been influenced by the separation of religiosity into E and I orientations. The practical implication is that most of what we think of as the negative correlates of religious belief have been supported for extrinsic religiosity but not intrinsic religiosity. It is also noteworthy that extrinsic religiosity is much more highly correlated with measures of religious fundamentalism than is intrinsic religiosity.
= = =
2.
Religion, Intrinsic-Extrinsic Orientation, and Depression
Vicky Genia, Dale G. Shaw
Review of Religious Research, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Mar., 1991), pp. 274-283
9.
A Study of Religiosity and Psychological Well-Being among African Americans: Implications for Counseling and Psychotherapeutic Processes
Linda K. Colbert, Joseph L. Jefferson, Ralph Gallo, Ronnie Davis
Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Sep., 2009), pp. 278-289
= = =
A Comparison of Religious Orientation and Health Between Whites and Hispanics
Ray M. Merrill, Patrick Steffen, Bradley D. Hunter
Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 51, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 1261-1277
Vol. 51, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 1261-1277
(article consists of 17 pages)
Published by: Springer
DOI: 10.2307/23352782
Stable URL: www.jstor.org...
Abstract
The study of religious orientation thus far has neglected the influence of race/ethnicity as well as all four religious orientations (intrinsic, extrinsic, pro-religious and nonreligious) in explaining differences in both physical and psychological health. A representative sample of 250 Hispanics and 236 non-Hispanic Whites in Utah was drawn and analysed for differences in health (self-rated health, life satisfaction, exercise) according to race/ethnicity, religious orientation and religious attendance. Responses to the Religious Orientation Scale differed significantly by race/ethnicity, indicating that future studies of religious orientation should take cultural context into account. For both Whites and Hispanics, pro-religious individuals reported the highest life satisfaction scores, which highlight the utility of employing the fourfold religious orientation typology.
= = =
24.
God Help Me (II): The Relationship of Religious Orientations to Religious Coping with Negative Life Events
Kenneth I. Pargament, Hannah Olsen, Barbara Reilly, Kathryn Falgout, David S. Ensing, Kimberly Van Haitsma
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 504-513
= = =
INTRINSIC-EXTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY
www.hirr.hartsem.edu...
Consistent with Allport's view of mature religiosity, extrinsic but not intrinsic religiosity typically correlates with more dysfunctional psychological constructs. Many psychometric critiques and modifications of the scales have been published. The only consensus is that extrinsic and intrinsic must be treated as independent scales, not as a continuum as initially conceived. Major critical reviews have emphasized the lack of theory-driven research, the inadequacies of these scales to operationalize fully Allport's theory, and the failure to clearly define religious orientations in value-neutral terms. The psychometric limitations of the original scales repeatedly have been challenged. An age-universal version of these scales is available. It is a matter of contention whether the scales are best used as independent dimensions or the basis for constructing typologies. Studies using these scales and theoretically linked alternatives continue to provide the major database for the contemporary empirical psychology of religion.
—Ralph W. Hood, Jr .
BO XIAN
reply to post by rickymouse
I hope you learn to discriminate even better that your above average between decent research into religiosity and this pile of horse feathers type of research that does NOT distinguish between
INTRINSIC [HEALTHY] RELIGIOSITY VS EXTRINSIC [DYSFUNCTIONAL, DISHONEST] RELIGIOSITY.