Changing Trends in Ritual Attendance and Spirituality throughout the College Years

doi:10.4236/psych.2013.412143

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2013. Vol.4, No.12, 994-997

Published Online December 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.412143

Open Access

994

Changing Trends in Ritual Attendance and Spirituality

throughout the College Years

Chelsi A. Creech, Paul J. Handal, Sean A. Worley, Travis J. Pashak,

Eunice J. Perez, Lea Caver

Saint Louis University, St Louis, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received October 8th, 2013; revised November 7th, 2013; accepted November 29th, 2013

Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all Copyrights ©

2013 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.

According to previous literature, levels of religiousness decrease among emerging adults, but similar re-

search has not been done regarding levels of spirituality. The current study examined the responses of

college students to measures of religiousness and spirituality. The participants in the study were from a

private, religiously affiliated university in the Midwest, between ages 18 and 24. Participants completed

the Personal Religious Inventory (PRI), the Duke Religion Index (DUREL), the Spiritual Transcendence

Scale (STS), the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (DSES) and the Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs

Scale (SIBS). Significant differences were found between first-year and upper-class participants on reli-

gious attendance, non-religious attendance, and the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale. Based on these re-

sults, it is suggested that multi-dimensional measures provide a more accurate view of religiousness than

one-dimensional measures.

Keywords: Religion; Spirituality; College Students

Introduction

Until the 1960s, religiousness and spirituality were not con-

sidered as separate belief systems (Hood Jr., Hill, & Spilka,

2009). For this reason, religion and spirituality were not re-

searched as separate constructs until more recently (Zinnbauer

et al., 1997). In the last fifteen years, a body of research has

developed regarding the differences between the two constructs,

but the constructs are operationalized in almost as many differ-

ent ways as there are studies (Zinnbauer et al., 1997). In a 1993

study, Gorsuch suggested the following definitions: spirituality

encompasses a person’s beliefs, values, and behavior, whereas

religiousness is a personal involvement in a specific religious

institution and traditions (Hood Jr. et al., 2009). Some re-

searchers, however, suggest that there is no such thing as spiri-

tuality outside of institutional religion (Hood Jr. et al., 2009).

Other studies, such as Zinnbauer et al. (1997), show a frequent

interchanging of the two terms, despite attempting to highlight

differences between them.

In their textbook on the subject, Hood Jr. et al. (2009) high-

lighted five key characteristics they say to separate the two

constructs. Spirituality is personal and subjective, without an

institutional or organized structure, and with high importance

placed on commitments to personal values. It may not include a

deity. Religiousness, by this definition, is a type of spirituality.

It always involves spirituality and is objective, institutional and

creedal, but spirituality need not always include religiousness.

This confusion about the definitions has made concrete distinc-

tions difficult to come by, but what has been clear is the grow-

ing trend in American culture to identify as spiritual and not

religious, when participants are asked to self-identify. Most

recently, in 2010 the Pew Research on Religion and Public Life

Project (PEW), it is found that around 30% of the American

public would self-identify as “spiritual but not religious”. The

2012 PEW poll found that 20% of Americans do not claim any

religious affiliation. Based on these numbers, it seems clear that

people in general feel there is a difference between the two

terms, despite difficulties in researching such differences.

Supporting the notion that religiousness may be a subset of

spirituality, Kneipp, Kelly and Cyphers (2009) found that high

scores on the Spiritual Well Being scale accounted for 16% of

the differences between students on the Student Adaptation to

College Questionnaire. Religiousness, measured by the Relig-

iousness Measure/Demographic Questionnaire, only accounted

for another 6% of the variance between the students. Along

with suggesting that there is some overlap between the two

constructs, this study also showed the importance of spirituality

and religiousness in college adjustment. Those with higher

scores on the spirituality and religiousness scales also generally

had higher scores on the measure of college adjustment. How-

ever, this study looked only at the levels of spirituality and

religiousness in the first year of college and did not track the

changes that may occur throughout the college years.

Evidence suggests that levels of religiousness decrease

throughout the college years (Uecker, Regnerus, & Vaaler,

2007; Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, 2011; Scheitle, 2011). How-

ever, Lee (2002) reported a decrease in ritual attendance during

C. A. CREECH ET AL.

college, and also reported an increase in religious conviction

across the college years. This finding is of importance because it

focuses on what aspect of religion is measured in studies con-

cerned with an increase or decrease in religion during the col-

lege years. Apparently, the issue of measurement originated in

the early studies of religion which equated a decrease in ritual

attendance with a decrease in religious belief (Feldman, 1968).

More recently, Uecker et al. (2007) found that college students’

religious convictions decreased less than their non-college at-

tending peers. Based on this result, they posited that it was not

a decrease in belief that changed, but rather only religious at-

tendance.

Contradictory results were reported by Astin et al. (2011)

who analyzed data from the Higher Education Research Insti-

tute’s Spirituality in Higher Education project. Their results

showed that students who self-identified as Christian as first

year students and attended Evangelical-affiliated schools showed

an increase in overall religiousness throughout college, but

Christian students at schools of other affiliations or secular

institutions decreased in religiousness, as measured by the Re-

ligious Tradition measure (RELTRAD). Students who self-

identified as members of a minority religion (e.g., Buddhism,

Islam, Judaism) and attended an Evangelical affiliated school

decreased in religiousness. Catholic and secular institutions

showed equal rates of decline in religiousness among all stu-

dents. At the Catholic institutions, this was equally true of the

Catholic students as well as those not affiliated with the Catho-

lic religion.

The literature is unclear about the relationship between re-

ligion and the college years. The literature shows a decrease in

religion, but it is unclear what is really decreasing—is it reli-

gious belief, conviction, or religious attendance? These dis-

crepancies seem to be a problem of measurement, namely what

is being measured; is it ritual attendance, or religious atten-

dance, or religious beliefs or religious convictions. Additionally,

it is notable that there is little research investigating the spiritu-

ality during the college years.

The present study investigated the relationship between re-

ligion and the college years by using a multi-dimensional

measure of religiousness, which assessed ritual attendance,

non-ritual attendance, and religious beliefs and practices. Addi-

tionally, this study investigated the relationship between spiri-

tuality and the college years by using three measures of spiritu-

ality, the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (DSES), the Spiri-

tual Transcendence Scale (STS), and the Spiritual Involvement

and Beliefs Scale (SIBS).

Method

Participants

Participants were 280 undergraduate students from a private

Midwestern university. The study included students between

the ages of 18 and 24 (M = 19.91, SD = 3.47). Of the 280, 190

were female (66%) and 196 were Caucasian (69%). There were

147 Catholics (52%), 56 other Christians (20%), 29 were athe-

ist or agnostic (9%), 15 were Hindus (5%), 6 were Muslims

(2%), and 25 were some other religion (9%). Two participants

chose not to report their religious affiliation. Freshmen or first

year students numbered 169 (60%) of the sample. Sophomore

participants numbered 52 (19%). Juniors numbered 42 (15%),

and seniors numbered 15 (5%). Because of the small N of jun-

iors and seniors, they were combined for analysis, for an N of

57 (20%).

Measures

Spiritual ity Measures

The 2004 Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (DSES) is

measured by a 16-item index. Participants were asked to

indicate how often they have certain spiritual experiences. The

responses range from never (coded 1), to many a day (coded 6).

Items were coded in the direction that higher scores reflected a

greater level of daily spiritual experiences (a = .96). Scores

were summed for each respondent and then averaged across

the 16 items. One of these items (“In general, how close do

you feel to God?”) is reverse scored in a 4-point metric (not at

all, somewhat close, very close, as close as possible) instead

of a 6-point likert scale. To be consistent with the directionality

(Underwood, 2002), the raw score of this item is reversed

coded and the 4-point scale is adjusted to fit the 6-point spec-

trum. The adjusted score is averaged for this subscale into the

total for the resulting mean score. Further, the scale was di-

vided into two subscales: a “theistic” subscale, with an alpha

reliability of .95 and a “non-theistic (self-transcendent)” sub-

scale, with an alpha reliability of .90 (Ellison & Fan, 2007).

The Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS) is a 24-item scale,

developed by Piedmont (2009), which consists of three sub-

scales: universality, prayer fulfillment, and connectedness.

Universality is the belief in the unity and purpose of life, prayer

fulfillment is a feeling of joy and contentment that results from

prayer or meditation, and connectedness is a sense of personal

responsibility and connection to others. The scale items were

answered on a 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) likert-

type scale. Piedmont (2009) showed these scales to have ac-

ceptable reliabilities for the subscales: .83 for universality, .87

for prayer fulfillment, and .64 for connectedness (Akyalcin,

Greenway, & Milne, 2008).

The Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs Scale (SIBS) (Hatch

et al., 1998) was designed to measure participants’ spiritual

status. It consists of four sub-scales. The first is the external/

ritual scale, which is a 13-item scale that reflects belief in a

greater power. Second is the internal/fluid scale, with 11 items

that reflect internal beliefs and growth. The third is the existen-

tial/meditative subscale, seven items which reflect existential

issues. Finally is the humility/personal application subscale

with four items that reflect humility and application of spiritual

principles. Internal reliability statistics for three of the subscales

are satisfactory: external/ritual, α = .98; internal/fluid, α = .74;

existential/meditative, α = .70) but perhaps, as Hatch et al.

(1998) suggest, not for humility/personal application sub-scale

(α = .51). The internal consistency of the SIBS was reportedly

high (Cronbach’s alpha = .92) and presented a test-retest reli-

ability of r = .92. This scale strengthens measures of spirituality

by evading the usage of cultural-religious bias, and assessment

of beliefs and actions (Maltby & Day, 2001).

Religiousness Measures

The PRI (Lipsmeyer, 1984) is a 45-item, nine scale, multi-

dimensional measure of religiosity. The scales measure per-

sonal prayer (PRP); ritual attendance (RA); non-ritual, church-

related activity (NRA); belief in God (BLFGOD); belief in an

afterlife (AFTLIFE); perceived congruence of a person’s reli-

Open Access 995

C. A. CREECH ET AL.

gious beliefs with their attitudes on social and moral issues

(RSM); the extent to which an individual’s ideas about religion

guide their philosophy or way of life (IDEO); the subjective

experience of feeling close to God (CLOSEGOD) ; and inte-

gration or the extent to which persons perceive that their

relationship with God influences their cognition, affect, and

behavior (INT). Most of the items use a 6-point Likert re-

sponse format; however, others use a multiple-choice or yes/no

format.

According to Lipsmeyer, test-retest reliability coefficients

over a one-week period were between .83 and .97 for the nine

scales in an adult population. Additionally, Lipsmeyer found

that the PRI had high concurrent validity; religious profes-

sionals (e.g., priests, ministers, nuns) scored significantly high-

er on all scales than the general public. Also, Lipsmeyer re-

ported that atheists, agnostics, and those with no religious

preference scored significantly lower than other major reli-

gious groups. Lipsmeyer reported that each subscale of the

PRI correlated highest with integration (INT), and that it had

the highest stability coefficient and was the best single measure

of religion (Ross, Handal, Clark, & Vander Wal, 2009).

The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) is a five-item

measure of religious involvement that is incorporated in epide-

miological surveys inspecting the affiliation between religion

and health outcomes (Koenig & Bussing, 2010). This brief

measure of religiosity was established for use in both cross-

sectional and longitudinal studies. It evaluates three main di-

mensions of religiosity: organizational religious activity, non-

organizational religious activity, and intrinsic/subjective religi-

osity. The scale assesses each of these components by a sepa-

rate “subscale”, and correspondences between health outcomes

should be examined by subscale in different models. The scale

as a whole displayed high test-retest reliability (intra-class cor-

relation = .91), high internal consistence (Cronbach’s alpha’s

= .78 - .91) and has high convergent validity with other religi-

osity measures (r’s = .71 - .86).

Demographic Measure

The participants also completed a 22-item demographic

questionnaire. These items asked about a participant’s age, eth-

nicity, sex, religious affiliation, college living arrangement,

volunteer and work positions, and finally whether a participant

identified as spiritual, religious or both.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology

classes. Some classes (approximately 66%) offered class credit

for participation, while the other classes were not offered in-

centives for participation. Participants accessed the study via

SONA, a university-approved research recruitment program, or

through a link provided to them by professors who helped with

recruitment. After accessing the study, they were directed to a

link to the Qualtrics site that was hosting the survey. Partici-

pants first answered the demographic questionnaire. Next, the

participants progressed through the Duke University Religious

Index, the Personal Religious Inventory, the Daily Spiritual

Experience Scale, the Spiritual Transcendence Scale, and the

Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs Scale. Participants were en-

couraged to complete all sections in order, but were able to

progress through the questionnaires at will. Participants were

able to end the survey at any time, and were able to skip any

questions they chose.

Results

In order to determine whether significant differences existed

on the measures on religion and spirituality, a series of analyses

of variance were computed and for significant F-values, follow

up Tukey’s HSD were computed to determine differences be-

tween groups. Results of these analyses revealed that signifi-

cant differences existed on measures of ritual attendance (F(2,

286) = 5.09, p < .007), non-ritual attendance (F(2, 286) = 3.63,

p < .027), and the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (F(2, 286)

= 4.88, p < .008). No significant differences were found on the

other religion and spirituality measures.

Results for Ritual attendance revealed that first year students

reported significantly higher levels of Ritual attendance (RA)

(M = 13.04, SD = 5.13) than upper-class students (M = 11.28,

SD = 5.55, p < .01). There were no significant differences be-

tween the sophomore participants and either the first-year or the

upper-class participants, with regard to ritual attendance.

Results for Non-Ritual attendance (NRA) revealed that, first

year participants reported significantly higher levels of NRA

(M = 10.65, SD = 4.59) than upper-class participants (M = 9.27,

SD = 4.56, p < .01). There were no significant differences be-

tween the sophomore participants and either the first year or the

upper-class participants, with regard to religious attendance.

Finally, first year participants reported significantly higher

scores on the Daily Spiritual Experiences Scale (M = 57.73, SD

= 16.54) than upper-class participants (M = 51.56, SD = 18.56,

p < .009). There were no significant differences between the

sophomore participants and either the first year or the upper-

class participants, with regard to religious attendance.

Discussion

The results of this study, namely that ritual attendance and

non-ritual attendance decreases during college, support the

findings reported by Lee (2002) and extend them in terms of

our finding that non-ritual attendance also decreases during

college. This later finding is not surprising since it may be ex-

pected that attendance at non-ritual church events would de-

crease because college students appear to be decreasing their

attendance at ritual events.

It is notable that no significant differences were reported for

the DUREL measure, which is a measure of religion. It is likely

that differences were found with the PRI and not with the

DUREL because the PRI is a multi-dimensional measure, with

separate scales for each of nine dimensions, whereas the

DUREL, although it has one item that asks about church atten-

dance, consists of a total score, which precludes a sensitivity to

the specific area of ritual and non-ritual attendance.

Additional results revealed that spirituality, as measured by

the DSES, decreased during the college years. However, this

finding did not occur on the other measures of spirituality,

namely the STS and the SIBS. It is possible that these results

are due to the fact that the DSES purports to measure how often

certain spiritual experiences occur, while the other two scales

purport to measure beliefs in unity, contentment, a greater

power and other internal beliefs. It may be that the DSES is

more experiential and the other measures are more cognitive.

These results are intriguing and certainly require additional

research.

Open Access

996

C. A. CREECH ET AL.

Open Access 997

This study reflects the existence of an ongoing difficulty in

research in the area of religion and spirituality, namely the dif-

ficulty that exists in measuring the constructs of religion and

spirituality. Contradictory findings may be explained by the

difference in the measures employed in a particular study as

operation definitions of the constructs of religion and spiritual-

ity.

Our results were found with a relatively small sample, which

would lend itself to a Type II error. It would be important that

additional research occur with a larger sample across each year

level to replicate our findings and to determine whether a Type

II error occurred on the other measures of spirituality.

REFERENCES

Akyalcin, E., Greenway, P., & Milne, L. (2008). Measuring transcen-

dence: Extracting core constructs. The Journal of Transpersonal

Psychology, 40, 41-59.

Astin, A. W., Astin, H. A., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Assessing stu-

dents’ spiritual and religious qualities. Journal of College Student

Development, 52, 39-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0009

Ellison, C. G., & Fan, D. (2008). Daily spiritual experiences and psy-

chological well-being among US adults. Social Indicators Research,

88, 247-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9187-2

Feldman, K. (1968). Change and stability of religious orientations

during college: Part I. freshman-senior comparisons. Review of Reli-

gious Research, 11, 40-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3510552

Hatch, R. L., Burg, M. A., Naberhaus, D. S., & Hellmich, L. K. (1998).

The Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs Scale: Development and test-

ing of a new instrument. The Journal of Family Practice, 46, 476-

486.

Hood Jr., R., Hill, P., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion.

(4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Koenig, H. G., & Bussing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion

Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological

studies. Religions, 1, 78-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078

Kneipp, L. B., Kelly, K. E., & Cyphers, B. (2009). Feeling at peace

with college: Religiosity, spiritual well-being, and college adjustment.

Individual Differences Research, 7, 188-196.

Lee, J. J. (2002). Religion and college attendance: Change among stu-

dents. The Review of Higher Education, 25, 369-384.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2002.0020

Lipsmeyer, M. E. (1984). The measurement of religiosity and its rela-

tionship to mental health/impairment. Unpublished Doctoral Disser-

tation, St. Louis, MO: Saint Louis University.

Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2001). Spiritual involvement and belief: The

relationship between spirituality and Eysenck’s personality dimen-

sions. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 187-192.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00024-6

PEWResearch (2012). Religion and the unaffliated.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-religion/

Piedmont, R. L., Ciarrochi, J. W., Dy-Liacco, G. S., & Williams, J. G.

(2009). The empirical and conceptual value of the spiritual transcen-

dence and religious involvement scales for personality research.

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 162-179.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015883

Ross, K., Handal, P., Clark, E., & Vander Wal, J. (2009). The relation-

ship between religion and religious coping: Religious coping as a

moderator between religion and adjustment. Journal of Religion and

Health, 48, 454-467.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10943-008-9199-5

Scheitle, C. P. (2011). Religious and spiritual change in college: As-

sessing the effect of a science education. Sociology of Education, 84,

122-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038040711401811

Uecker, J. E., Regnerus, M. D., & Vaaler, M. L. (2007). Losing my

religion: The social sources of religious decline in early adulthood.

Social Forces, 85, 1667-1687.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0083

Underwood, L. G., & Teresi, J. T. (2002). The Daily Spiritual Experi-

ence Scale: Development, theoretical description, reliability, ex-

ploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using

health-related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24 , 22-31.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2401_04

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M.,

Belavich, T. G., Hipp, K. M., & Scott, A. B. (1997). Religion and

spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 36, 549-564. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1387689