Religion as Culture: Religious Individualism and Collectivism Among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants

Adam B. Cohen1 and Peter C. Hill2

Arizona State University and University of California, Berkeley

Biola University

ABSTRACT We propose the theory that religious cultures vary in individualistic and collectivistic aspects of religiousness and spirituality. Study 1 showed that religion for Jews is about community and biological descent but about personal beliefs for Protestants. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity were intercorrelated and endorsed differently by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants in a pattern that supports the theory that intrinsic religiosity relates to personal religion, whereas extrinsic religiosity stresses community and ritual (Studies 2 and 3). Important life experiences were likely to be social for Jews but focused on God for Protestants, with Catholics in between (Study 4). We conclude with three perspectives in understanding the complex relationships between religion and culture.

The attempt to speak without speaking any particular language is not more hopeless than the attempt to have a religion that shall be
Adam B. Cohen, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, and Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley. Peter C. Hill, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University. Some data from Study 1 and Study 2 were presented at the seventh annual conference of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Palm Springs, CA. Both Adam Cohen and Peter Hill gratefully acknowledge the support of the Spiritual Transformation Scientific Research program, sponsored by the Metanexus Institute on Religion and Science, with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation. Adam Cohen also thankfully acknowledges the support of a Templeton Advanced Research Program grant from the Metanexus Institute. We would like to thank Michelle V. Flythe and Elizabeth J. Horberg for assisting with narrative coding in Study 4. Address correspondence to: Adam Cohen, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104. E-mail:

Journal of Personality 75:4, August 2007 r 2007, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation r 2007, Blackwell Publishing, Inc. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00454.x


Cohen & Hill

no religion in particular. . . . Thus every living and healthy religion has a marked idiosyncrasy. Its power consists in its special and surprising message and in the bias which that revelation gives to life. The vistas it opens and the mysteries it propounds are another world to live in; and another world to live in—whether we expect ever to pass wholly into it or no—is what we mean by having a religion. George Santayana, Reason in Religion (1905/1982, pp. 5–6)

American culture is highly individualistic relative to other countries. Many interrelated factors could have promoted the high level of individualism in America (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis, 1995). Influences on American individualism have been theorized to include, for example, the political philosophies of the American founding fathers, the emphasis on individual rights and freedom, limited government, the American market economy, and American frontier life (Oyserman et al., 2002). While not disputing these other factors, we wish to focus on the rich theoretical tradition that attributes American individualism to Protestant religion. As Oyserman and colleagues (2002) pointed out, ‘‘Researchers assume that these processes led to a Western cultural focus on individualism that is more salient in countries and ethnic groups with a Protestant heritage, applying the idea of Western individualism to both cross-regional and within-country comparisons of ethnic groups with different cultural heritages’’ (p. 4). It has long been noted that Protestant religion was formatively related to American culture in general and, more specifically, to American individualism (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985). In his classic work, Democracy in America, the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville (1835/1969) famously claimed, ‘‘I think I can see the whole destiny of America contained in the first puritan who landed on those shores, as that of the whole human race in the first man’’ (p. 279). de Tocqueville further remarked on the great influence that Christianity had on American culture, noting that Protestantism had a tendency to make people independent. As such, Protestantism can be seen as individualistic because the Protestant Reformation promoted the view that salvation occurs as a process between an individual and God and is not mediated by the Church (as in Catholicism, for example).

Religion as Culture


In the American context, an individual-centered construal of religion seems to have become even more individualistic because of the history of the church-state relationship. Religion in the United States was not always viewed as being entirely personal and private, as it is today. Because the First Amendment only prohibits federally sanctioned religion, for much of early American history there was an established religion (though other religions were tolerated), and this continued until well after the Revolutionary War. Following the disestablishment of religion, which was complete in 1833 when Massachusetts gave up established religion, religion became more of a private matter (Bellah et al., 1985). By the 1850s, ‘‘For religion to have emphasized the public order in the old sense of deference and obedience to external authorities would no longer have made sense. Religion did not cease to be concerned with moral order, but it operated with a new emphasis on the individual and the voluntary association. Moral teaching came to emphasize self-control rather than deference’’ (Bellah et al., 1985, p. 222), and sermons became less doctrinal and ‘‘more emotional and sentimental’’ (p. 223). Perhaps another factor that made Protestantism increasingly focused on emotion was the scientific revolution, which encouraged religion to focus on subjective emotions and be independent of a more rationally based, natural science (reviewed in Cohen, Hall, Koenig, & Meador, 2005). The Protestant influence on American culture might be one key reason why American theories of religious identity and motivation are particularly centered on the individual. Clearly, the dominant theoretical model in the scientific study of religion has been Gordon Allport’s distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religion (Allport, 1950, 1958; Allport & Ross, 1967). Originally conceived by Allport as mature (i.e., intrinsic) and immature (i.e., extrinsic) religion, the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction has been, by and large, maintained by psychologists of religion for 50 years. Extrinsic religion was conceived by Allport as an orientation where religion is ‘‘used’’ for instrumental purposes, including for social integration. Because American Protestant religion focuses strongly on personal relationship with God, Americans by and large do not resonate with religion that is based on community affiliation, social relationships, tradition, and ritual (Bellah et al., 1985; Cohen, Hall, et al., 2005; Snibbe & Markus, 2003). Hence, certain extrinsic items on the Allport and Ross (1967) scale such as ‘‘One reason for my being a church

When people act according to these blueprints. uniqueness. As such. 2005. feel. and personal control. & Pargament. Tarakeshwar. McCrae. and act. There are many facets to both individualism and collectivism that carry implications for many domains of psychological functioning. p. self-concept. 5). We propose that many American Protestant religious groups are individualistic in the sense that all of religious and spiritual experience is seen as a process that occurs uniquely between an individual and God. for discussions of how the study of religion can benefit many areas of psychology). Subscribing to this view of culture. they reproduce the public models. 704). At the individual level. it is necessary for us to specify in what sense we will be discussing individualism and collectivism as they have an impact on religious and spiritual identity and motivation. 2003. existing both in individual minds and in public artifacts. and practices.712 Cohen & Hill member is that such membership helps to establish a person in the community’’ seem to have a particular negative connotation and nonnormative valence within American. institutions. Protestant religions. 1999. the core of individualism is a worldview that stresses personal goals. we claim that groups of people that share religious identity can be meaningfully viewed as sharing cultural models and indeed as members of different cultures. (2002) pointed out. Religious Cultural Differences in Individualism and Collectivism We claim that considerable light can be shed on individualism and collectivism by explicating differences among religious groups in individualistic and collectivistic processes (see Hill. Snibbe and Markus concluded that ‘‘cultural models are sets of assumptions that are widely (though not universally) shared by a group of people. the ‘‘core element of collectivism is the assumption that groups bind and mutually obligate individuals’’ (p. such as well-being. thereby perpetuating the cultural context from which both were derived’’ (Snibbe & Markus. religious identity and motivation are seen as revolving around personal faith and the salience of religion to the . attributional style. and relationality. In contrast. With so many domains to individualism and collectivism. 1999. individualistic. As Oyserman et al. these cultural models provide implicit blueprints of how to think. Stanton.

intrinsic religious identity.. Rabbi Neil Gilman (1990) explained. people’s religious and spiritual behavior may be tightly regulated through ritual and tradition. a group acquires a distinctive identity. 1995).Religion as Culture 713 individual. goes hand-in-hand with a more obligationbased view of religion among collectivistic religious groups. certain religious cultures value social connections as an integral element of religious life. we propose that. and Hinduism (reviewed in Cohen. et al. religious motivations that are socially centered can be seen as detracting from individualistic. ‘‘Rituals.. Collectivism is often seen as relying on obligation and on overcoming one’s internal desires for the good of the collective (Markus & Kitayama. 2005). in collectivistic religious cultures. That’s how they create communities. and group affiliations are seen as important. Perhaps as a consequence of this strong collective identity. Judaism is a religion of ‘‘descent’’ (Morris. In the process. to us. parts of religious identity.g. This emphasis on ritual. people are seen as fundamentally connected with each other and their communities. Hall. 229). members of descent religions may be more . Furthermore. 2005). Exemplars of such religions include Judaism. Hindu India and several East Asian countries). Catholicism. where religion is first defined in hereditary terms—traditionally. We theorize that a similar set of processes could characterize the experience of collectivistic religions. for who we are depends in large measure on where we belong. separate from others’’ (p. certain branches of non-Catholic Christianity (such as Episcopalianism or the Amish). 1991. like verbal languages. there are several clear justifications within Jewish teaching concerning reasons to perform religious duties even when not intrinsically motivated. even defining. et al. For example. like the collectivistic cultures that are more often studied (e. We theorize that differences in religious individualism and collectivism among religious cultures may be partly attributable to whether religious membership is defined by heredity or by beliefs. Triandis. As a consequence. In collectivistic religious cultures. They garb the social experiences of everyday life in the distinctive values of a particular group. Hall. a person is first a Jew because that person is born of a Jewish mother (or parent of either sex in more liberal strains of Judaism). 1997). It is often seen as praiseworthy to place the religious requirement above one’s own private desire (Cohen. In contrast.. confer identity.

xx). Gilman (1990) wrote. . even the most authentic among us. who demonstrated that intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity were correlated negatively among Protestants. (2005). . nor do we feel that our religiosity is any the worse for it. Cohen. In contrast. thrice-daily prayer. 1997). and Rozin (2003) found that Jews and Protestants have similar views on the importance of practice in being religious but that Protestants place greater importance on religious belief. suggested these moderator effects could be due to the differing value that Catholicism and Protestantism place on certain components of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. the dietary laws. as it is for Christianity. et al. have never given much thought to clarifying just what we believe about God. Current Goals Despite these theoretical differences among religious cultures. Pierce. p. there has been little empirical work on cultural differences in what people mean when they claim to be religious or spiritual or on the processes related to their religious and spiritual identities and motivation. Cohen. extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity were positively (but weakly) correlated among Catholics. is more likely to focus on internal motivations and states (Morris. Other initial support for our argument is evident in recent work by Cohen. ‘‘In the final analysis. . Our intent is to provide systematic evidence for differing religious collectivistic and individualistic identity and motivation among three . as a set of religions of ‘‘assent’’ to shared beliefs and values. The ‘religious’ among us observe the Sabbath.714 Cohen & Hill likely to downplay the importance of what constitutes appropriate religious dogma—evident perhaps in a lesser expectation that religious behavior expresses internal beliefs. as well as allowing more latitude in what constitutes appropriate religious beliefs. Pierce. Most Jews. et al. particularly on social aspects of religious identity and motivation. They furthermore claimed that the individualistic slant of the intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity scales applied better to Protestants than Catholics. the Festivals. the suspicion that seems to have haunted Jewish philosophy most throughout its history stems from an almost intuitive feeling that the philosopher’s preoccupation with clarifying and systematizing what Jews are supposed to believe is simply not as intrinsically important to Judaism. However. and the ethical teachings of the tradition’’ (preface. Siegel. Protestant Christianity.

Religion as Culture 715 religious cultural groups (Catholics. Cohen. & Cherfas. & Park. Much. 2005). 1994. as reflected in placing greater importance on religious symbols. Oyserman et al. Malka. Catholics seem more collective. it is too simplistic to suggest that either religious tradition fully embraces only one orientation to the exclusion of the other. Mahapatra. Cohen et al. Rather. . such as in studies of American–Hindu Indian differences in moral reasoning (e. yet differentially emphasize individualistic and collectivistic aspects of self-construal. 2004. 2001. and religiosity.. et al. Unfortunately. Sampson (2000) contrasted the collectivistic worldview of traditional Judaism with the individualistic viewpoint of certain Christian religious groups. Jews. and motivation (Markus & Kitayama. compared to Protestants. and Protestants) in the United States. Therefore. and tradition. 2000). we restrict our focus to religious cultural groups within one country. the United States. ritual. such as moral judgment. Cohen & Rankin. Catholics are included in the analyses. 2006. Cohen & Rozin. In three of the four studies reported here. 2003). On the other hand. has focused primarily on Jewish– Protestant differences (e. 2002).g. forgiveness. Hall. Miller & Bersoff. we consider individualistic religious identity and motivation as an expression of individual feelings and faith and personal relationship with God. 2003.. much prior work has neglected to include Roman Catholics. Collectivistic religious and spirituality identity and motivation are conceptualized as emphasizing social integration. Because religious values persist through the process of modernization in cultures (Inglehart & Baker. Cohen. Early work on related topics. Much cross-cultural work on individualism and collectivism confounds country of origin and religion.g. with a belief structure that has considerable overlap with that of Protestants. Rozin. 2002.. Catholics are Christian. As we have stated. we claim that religious cultures reflect different emphases—just as cultural psychologists propose not that America fully embraces individualism whereas certain other cultures solely embrace collectivism but that cultures contain both individualistic and collectivistic notions. Of course. and Protestants.. well-being. On the one hand. corporate worship.. 1991. Shweder. 1997). Jews. we hypothesize that religious values concerning individualistic and collectivistic identity and motivation will be evident in contemporary American Catholics. identity. And indeed. and communal religious identity (Cohen. who are perhaps in a unique position.

In Study 2. we will begin to bolster our theoretical perspective that Protestants endorse what we have theorized to be religiously individualistic processes of identity. STUDY 1 In this preliminary study. and views of ritual. The Jewish sample (n 5 88) consisted of 35 Orthodox Jews. feelings of connection to coreligionists. as well as some related constructs (Morris. Religious leaders from churches and synagogues in central Pennsylvania were asked to distribute questionnaires to congregants. Sixty-five were married. and 2 did not provide marital status. 13 single. These are all factors that Morris (1997) has theorized would be related to assent.and descent-based religious membership. We present data from Catholics. Fifty-three participants were women. 24 Reform Jews. we investigated whether Jews and Protestants differ on whether religion relies on assent to beliefs versus biological descent. we investigated whether Jews and Protestants would differ on whether religion relies on assent to beliefs versus biological descent. an Internet sample of Catholics. views about the controllability of religious beliefs. whereas Jews are more religiously collectivistic. and 5 Reconstructionist Jews. In Study 3. 24 Conservative Jews. 34 were men. We investigated the involvement of God and social relationships in these experiences. and Protestants. They were not told in detail about the purpose of the questionnaire. 1997). . spirituality. If we can produce evidence related to these goals. salience of religious identity.716 Cohen & Hill In Study 1. using a large undergraduate sample. No compensation was given. 7 widowed. Jews. 2 separated or divorced. and Protestants described meaningful experiences. and Allport and Ross’s (1967) intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity scales. a preliminary study on community samples of Jews and Protestants. Method Participants. participants rated intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity items for the degree to which they were seen as appropriate motivations for religion. Jews. In Study 4. we investigated interrelationships between religiousness. We also examined whether these social and God experiences correlated with intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity in divergent patterns.

Jews (M 5 55. ritual.7. Participants indicated their age.0) also rated themselves more spiritual than Jews did (M 5 2. po. This sample was also predominantly female (45 women. The pool of 13 items was subjected to an exploratory Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation. SD 5 1. Two items were combined to make a ‘‘belief controllability factor’’ (Factor 2). ritual. po. 3 widowed. SD 5 14. ritual emphasis.6. SD 5 1. and 1 did not provide race. community obligations. t (156) 5 6. Seventy-five were White and 10 did not provide racial or ethnic information.001). SD 5 1.3. community. The Protestant sample (n 5 72) consisted of 39 Methodists. 3 separated or divorced. t (156) 5 5.8) rated themselves more religious than did Jews (M 5 2.0) were slightly older than Protestants (M 5 50. Protestants (M 5 3. which generated a clear five-factor solution (Table 1).2. descent. t (156) 5 2.8. and controllability of religious beliefs.0. and 1 did not provide marital status. 6 single. .001).2. education from 1 (elementary school) to 5 (graduate degree). Four participants were from a nondenominational. Demographic measures. 3 were Black.0. po. and 13 Presbyterians. SD 5 17.6. 26 men.6. Assent.1. Results and Discussion Preliminary analyses. Assent. SD 5 0. Three items were combined to create a ‘‘ritual factor’’ (Factor 3). and 1 did not provide sex). and self-rated levels of religiousness and spirituality.7. SD 5 1. po. Three items were averaged to create an ‘‘assent factor’’ (Factor 1). 16 Baptists. SD 5 1. community.0. fundamentalist church.05).0.0. Thirteen items tapped people’s beliefs about assent versus descent membership in their religion. Responses were from À 7 (strongly disagree) to 17 (strongly agree). and controllability of religious beliefs (Table 1). Most (n 5 59) were married.0) were also more educated than Protestants (M 5 3. t (146) 5 2. Protestants (M 5 3. Jews (M 5 4. Sixty-seven were White. which were rated on separate 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) scales. Two items were averaged to create a ‘‘community responsibility factor’’ (Factor 5).05).Religion as Culture 717 and 2 did not indicate sex. Three items were combined to create a ‘‘descent factor’’ (Factor 4). descent.0. and belief controllability.

03 .08 Item .23 .02 .00 . .01 À .12 .83 . My religion or faith is mostly focused on an individual’s relationship with God.00 À .07 . My religion or faith teaches that a person’s religious beliefs can be controlled.05 .69 .90 .10 Factor 1: Assent Being a member of my religion/faith is a matter of what a person believes in his or her heart.08 À .83 . Factor 3: Ritual My religion or faith has a very legalistic tradition.15 2 3 4 5 À .17 À .04 À .05 .80 .27 .68 .09 .77 À .23 .06 À .Table 1 Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings from Principal Components Analysis in Study 1 Loading on Factor 1 .16 . My religion or faith is very structured.08 . My religion or faith cares mostly about a person’s behavior. Factor 2: Belief controllability My religion or faith teaches that a person’s religious beliefs cannot be controlled.07 .19 .33 À .11 .03 À .04 À .02 .05 .88 .19 . My religion or faith mostly cares about what a person believes in his heart.02 À .

Factor 4: Descent (Instructions: Imagine a person who was born into a different religion/faith from you but then was adopted as an infant into a family of your religion/faith.8 1.75 À .7 1.01 À .27 If I want to know whether a person really belongs to my religion/faith. Factor 5: Community Responsibility As a member of my religion or faith.00 .29 .01 . This person is as much a member of my .03 .87 in some sense responsible for other members of my religion or faith.07 religion or faith as anyone else.) .38 À . This person does not know that he was adopted and believes fully in the teachings of your religion.61 À .1 1.04 À . I have to know what religion their biological parents are. they would have to undergo a formal conversion. À .3 Eigenvalue 3.11 .04 .10 À .3 13.2 1.0 Note: Salient factor loadings are in bold.9 12.00 .28 .03 .66 community life.5 10.07 .07 . .9 14. Percent of total variance explained 16.05 . My religion or faith is focused mostly on À .24 .76 .15 In order for this person to be a true member of my religion or faith. I am .

720 Cohen & Hill Table 2 Means for Jews and Protestants on Demographics. and Jews scored higher on the community responsibility scale (Table 2).6 3.0n 2.0 p . Jews were expected to express greater endorsement of the descent.5 3.46.8 SD 0.001.2 17.2n 2.8 3. community responsibility. religiousness. Ritual.05. For the descent scale (b 5 .0 2. and Protestant was coded as 0.4 0.19.1 2.7 3.3 3.001).0 1.001).0 1.7 55. and Community Responsibility Scales in Study 1 Jews M Demographics Religiousness Spirituality Age Education Scale Scores Assent Belief control Ritual Descent Community responsibility Notes: np .001).6nnn 2.0nnn 2.2 3.57.1 1. po.7 À 2. 1997). po.9 2. and ritual scales. p 5 . We next investigated whether these differences would survive controlling for sex. Means for belief controllability were in the predicted directions but were not significantly different.0 14. religious identity is more related to biological descent and ritual than for Protestants—a religiously collectivistic viewpoint.8 5. Belief Controllability.1 2.7nnn 5. Jews and Protestants differed strongly in scores for the assent.0n 6.6 2. These results suggest that for Jews. and the assent scale (b 5 À .0 1. the effect of religious group was still highly significant (bs are the effects of religion). age. and ritual scales.49. the ritual scale (b 5 .9nnn 4.2 2. spirituality.5 À 4.9 1. nnn Protestants SD 1.3 3.6 2.8 1.0 6. Descent. and education.0 M 3. whereas Protestants were expected to score higher on the assent scale and on the belief controllability scale (Morris. Assent.9 Significance df 156 156 146 156 149 121 130 143 130 t 6.0 3. po. The effect of religion on the community responsibility scale was reduced to marginal significance (b 5 .2nnn 1.3 4.6 50.2 3.09). For . descent.3 4. Jewish was coded as 1.

For example. et al. Of importance. Perhaps. we expected extrinsic religiosity to be positively related to religiousness and spirituality for Jews and Catholics. et al. the extrinsic item from Allport and Ross (1967) of . then. we investigated. in a large student sample of Catholics. the best strategy would be to explore differences in endorsement of extrinsic-social versus extrinsic-personal items.. for our purposes. For example. STUDY 2 In this study. our goal was not to use these scales to examine the religious orientation of our participants per se but to demonstrate that religious cultural group moderates patterns of responses to these items in ways that are consistent with differences in religious individualism and collectivism. we note that prior investigators have devoted considerable attention to the factor structure of the Allport and Ross (1967) intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity scales. However. 1989) that extrinsic religiosity can be further subdivided into a three-item. religion is related to personal assent to religious beliefs. extrinsic-personal subscale (sample item: ‘‘The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and protection’’) and a three-item. Hall. We expected extrinsic religiosity to relate negatively to religiousness and spirituality for Protestants. intrinsic religiosity would be positively correlated with self-ratings of religiousness and spirituality. responses to Allport and Ross’s (1967) intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity scales. some evidence has emerged (Kirkpatrick. a religiously individualistic outlook. Because many extrinsic religiosity items tap social and ritual elements of religion. We predicted that for all three groups. extrinsic-social subscale (sample item: ‘‘A primary reason for my interest in religion is that my church is a congenial social activity’’). and Protestants. we agree with Cohen. even those that do not explicitly reference social considerations (Cohen. Hall.Religion as Culture 721 Protestants. Jews. In drawing our distinction between social and individualistic religious motivation and identity in the context of Allport’s notion of intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness. (2005) that there are implicit social aspects to many extrinsic items. 2005). as well as derivative scales. All of these religious communities consider it important to have religion be personally salient and internalized.

135 women).27. Method Participants. as well as exploratory analyses for the extrinsic-social and extrinsic-personal subscales. 79 men. The intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity scales and the two religious salience items were responded to on 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scales. originally conceptualized to measure mature religiosity and the extent to which religion is the master motive in one’s life (Allport & Ross. et al. The sex ratios did not significantly differ among the samples. we present data for the intrinsic and extrinsic scales. people are taught to pray in a certain. p 5 . 21 men. separate single-item self-ratings of religiousness and spirituality. But Cohen.60. in religions that focus on ritual and tradition. Measures included the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of Allport and Ross’s (1967) religious orientation scale. (2005) observed that.364 students at the University of California.’’ The extrinsic religiosity subscale consists of 11 items. prayer is a skill that requires practice. Jewish (N 5 42. instrumental use of religion. 1967). which could result in more endorsement of ‘‘praying because one has been taught to pray. The intrinsic religiosity subscale consists of nine items. w2 (2) 5 2. Hall. or Protestant (N 5 214. 21 women). Sample items are ‘‘I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life’’ and ‘‘My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life. Hence. ritualized way from a young age.93). Sample items are ‘‘It doesn’t matter so much what I believe so long as I lead a . Therefore.’’ For these reasons. Measures. Data were analyzed from all people who identified themselves as Catholic (N 5 164. how important is your religion or faith in that?’’ These two items were combined into an ‘‘identity’’ scale (a 5 . A total of 1. 62 men and 102 women).722 Cohen & Hill ‘‘I pray chiefly because I have been taught to pray’’ may not explicitly have a social nature to it. Self-ratings of religiousness and spirituality were responded to on 0 (not at all) to 5 (deeply) scales. Berkeley. filled out a questionnaire packet for course credit. proposed by Allport and Ross to tap the immature. we did not strongly hypothesize that the greater value placed on social motivation and identity among Catholics and Jews would be evident only in extrinsic-social items. and two items designed to tap salience of religious identity: (a) ‘‘How important a part of your identity is your religion or faith to you?’’ and (b) ‘‘If someone wanted to understand who you are as a person.

MSE 5 168. 416) 5 10. nnn p .001.59 9.21 10. For extrinsic religiosity.70nnn Notes: dferror for analyses range from 413 to 419. etc.72 Jews M 1. with Jews showing the lowest scores ( pso.001. there was a significant effect of religious culture. po.50) or Protestants (p 5 .43 11.38A 2. F (2. the extrinsic item. po. Jews. There was a significant effect of religious culture on intrinsic religiosity.85A 33. and Protestants in Study 2 Catholics Item or scale Religiousness Spirituality Intrinsic religiosity Extrinsic religiosity Identity M 2.79. On the identity scale.001). Mean differences for the scales were explored via one-way ANOVA (Table 3).20 1. with Protestants scoring highest.43 1.49 3.39 4.97BC 9.05 12.001.’’ Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity items were adapted to be more inclusive.37A 42. Means that do not share a subscript within a row differ significantly by post-hoc Bonferroni test.94. then Catholics. ‘‘One reason for my being a church member is that such membership helps to establish a person in the community’’ was changed slightly to read ‘‘One reason for my being a church member (or other religious institution.04 F 18.60. F (2.99C 36.95B 39.) is that such membership helps to establish a person in the community.17A 8. 419) 5 34. all three groups significantly differed. MSE 5 15.001).66B 2. For example. MSE 5 115.01 3.60nnn 10.24C 39.24A SD 1.49). 419) 5 14.92nnn 34. F (2.29 1. but Jews did not differ significantly from Catholics (p 5 . Bonferroni tests showed that all three groups differed.320 11. p .94C 3.55AB 6.25 14. with Protestants scoring .94nnn 14.96nnn 16.45. The between-subject df is 2 for all analyses. The scores for Catholics were higher than those of Protestants (po.85 Protestants Significance M 2. such as synagogue.19. mosque.57B SD 1. moral life’’ and ‘‘A primary reason for my interest in religion is that my church is a congenial social activity.001.02B 22.73C SD 1.70.’’ Results and Discussion Mean differences.Religion as Culture 723 Table 3 Mean Differences Among Catholics.

01.33nnn Extrinsic religiosity–social .30nnn .001.96.48nnn .55nnn Intrinsic religiosity .82nnn . 413) 5 18.56nnn .16n À . with Protestants scoring higher than Catholics and Jews .57nnn .83.76nnn .001. Post-hoc Bonferroni tests indicated significant differences between the three groups.06 .71nnn .79nnn .02 Notes: wpo.58nnn Protestants (ns range from 212 to 215) Religious Spiritual Identity Intrinsic religiosity Spiritual .29nnn . po.32nnn . MSE 5 1.57nnn .44nn .25 .60nnn .05 . higher than Catholics (p 5 .02 p .10.41nn .26nnn À .58nnn . (p .56nnn .32nnn .02 .38nn . nnn p .39n . np .13 .724 Cohen & Hill Table 4 Correlations of Items and Scales in Study 2 Catholics (ns range from 160 to 165) Religious Spiritual Identity Intrinsic religiosity Spiritual Identity Intrinsic religiosity Extrinsic religiosity Extrinsic religiosity–social Extrinsic religiosity–personal .69nnn .29w .11 .19n .10 .07 À .001) and Jews.58nnn .04).79nnn .60nnn .33n . nn À .91nnn Extrinsic religiosity À . F(2.001).14w .41nn .32nnn À .05.07 .00 À .46nn .15n Extrinsic religiosity–personal . Religious cultural groups also differed in mean levels of self-rated religiousness.27nnn .34nnn .68nnn .32nnn Jews (ns range from 38 to 42) Religious Spiritual Identity Intrinsic religiosity Spiritual Identity Intrinsic religiosity Extrinsic religiosity Extrinsic religiosity–social Extrinsic religiosity–personal .61nnn Identity . and Catholics scoring higher than Jews (p 5 .

Protestants rated themselves more spiritual than did Catholics (p 5 . ns). p .03.07. ns).01. Correlations were negative among Protestants. Intrinsic religiosity was highly and positively correlated with identity. spirituality (b 5 À . nonsignificant among Catholics. intrinsic religiosity. spirituality (b 5 À . ns). Extrinsic religiosity was more highly correlated among Jews. we compared correlations among Catholics and Prot estants. religiousness. we do not present moderator analyses for the subscales.008). Correlational and moderator analyses. As our analyses for extrinsic-social and extrinsic-personal subscales were exploratory and the patterns were similar to those of the general extrinsic scales. and their interaction. In these regressions.001). ns).01). First we compared Jews to Protestants. 413) 5 16. In contrast. p .001). as compared to Protestants.31. or identity (b 5 . Catholics rated themselves more spiritual than did Jews (p 5 . and Protestants. Intrinsic religiosity correlated to about similar extents with self-rated religiosity (b 5 .001).25. and identity (b 5 . extrinsic religiosity correlated with intrinsic religiosity. spirituality (b 5 . religious identity. All variables were standardized. Next. A similar pattern was seen for spirituality self-ratings.05.04. ns). and spirituality in all three religious groups (Table 4).01.26. We next carried out a series of moderated regressions to test for differences in correlations. p .001).02. among Catholics and Protestants. ns). Jews. ns). and Catholics also scoring higher than Jews (p 5 . intrinsic religiosity (b 5 .001).Religion as Culture 725 (ps . ns).62. self-rated religiousness. with self-rated religiousness (b 5 . ns). and religiosity identity (b 5 . and identity (b 5 .01. and highly positive among Jews. To test for the significance of differences in correlations. MSE 5 1.18.001). self-rated spirituality (b 5 . we followed the procedures for moderated regression analyses proposed by Aiken and West (1991). the dependent variable was regressed on religious group. Similar patterns were evident for the extrinsic-social and extrinsic-personal subscales. Extrinsic religiosity was more highly correlated among . po. F (2. Intrinsic religiosity also correlated to similar extents among Jews and Protestants with religiosity (b 5 À .92. p . Comparing Catholics and Jews also showed no differences in correlations between intrinsic religiosity and self-rated religiosity (b 5 À . and self-rated spirituality to vastly different extents among Catholics.00.001.01) and Jews (po.

p .003).06.04) and a marginal difference in correlations between extrinsic religiosity and intrinsic religiosity (b 5 .16. The difference in correlations between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity scales among Catholics and Protestants.11).726 Cohen & Hill Catholics. controlling for religiosity left a significant difference in correlations between extrinsic religiosity and identity. and Protestants. the individualistic aspects of religious identity that are contained in the intrinsic religiosity scale seem to resonate more than they did with either Catholics or Jews.06).08. Conversely. Jews. p 5 . intrinsic religiosity (b 5 . controlling for religiousness. However.05. p 5 .001). p . p . We similarly compared correlations among Jews and Catholics and discovered significant differences for correlations of extrinsic religiosity with religious identity (b 5 .13.03. p 5 . Similar results emerged for Catholic–Protestant differences in correlations. (b 5 . and no significant difference in correlations for self-rated spirituality (b 5 . Summary.18. selfrated spirituality (b 5 . self-rated religiousness (b 5 . the JewishProtestant difference in correlations between intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity was still significant when controlling for self-rated religiousness (b 5 .11). but not for .11.001). was marginally significant (b 5 .001). For the extrinsic religiosity-identity difference in correlations. though we believe these analyses should be interpreted with caution because self-rated religiosity and intrinsic religiosity are highly correlated and may tap similar underlying constructs for members of these religious groups. as compared to Protestants. with religious identity (b 5 . as reflected in the higher mean scores for Protestants. p 5 . for Protestants.17. a marginal difference for self-rated religiousness (b 5 . p 5 . p 5 . For Protestants. the items in the community-oriented extrinsic religiosity scale were endorsed more by Catholics and Jews than by Protestants.02). The Jewish-Protestant difference in correlations between extrinsic religiosity and identity also remained significant when controlling for self-rated religiousness (b 5 . and intrinsic religiosity (b 5 .19.18). ns). One interpretation of these differing correlations is group differences in global religiousness.01). Moreover. p 5 . For Catholics and Jews. p . p . p 5 . partialling out religiousness also reduced the effect somewhat (b 5 . We interpret these results to be consistent with our theorizing regarding differences in individualistic and collectivistic processes among American Catholics.

Please rate each of the following statements in terms of how appropriate they would be as motivations for religious behavior—not how much each one describes you. We asked participants to rate how appropriate each intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity item would be as a religious motivation instead of asking how participants personally endorsed each item. imagine that this is a statement by a person who is explaining their motivations or feelings about religion.4. .Religion as Culture 727 Catholics or Jews. suggesting perhaps that Catholics may entertain some combination of these outlooks. In addition. we obtained single-item self-ratings of religiousness and spirituality on 1 (not at all) to 5 (deeply) scales. The correlations of extrinsic religiosity with other variables among Catholics were intermediate in magnitude between those of Jews and Protestants.02. For Jews.2. and 121 Catholics. SD 5 0. MSE 5 1. There was a significant effect of religious cultural group on religiousness self-ratings (F (2. both individualistic (intrinsic) and community (extrinsic) aspects of religion may be mutually reinforcing. We neglected to solicit the two-item religious identity scale in this study. po. Procedures were the same as in Study 2. 330) 5 24. Method Participants and procedures.001). sample of 62 Jews. 151 Protestants. Participants were provided with the intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity items and were given the following instructions: ‘‘For each of the following statements.9) rated themselves more religious than did Jews (M 5 2. Berkeley. for whom intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity are positive intercorrelated.06. SD 5 1.1) and Catholics (M 5 3.5. but how appropriate each one is in your view. extrinsic motivations are incompatible with intrinsic motivations insofar as extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity are negatively correlated with each other.’’ Ratings were made on 1 (not at all appropriate) to 7 (very appropriate) scales. We present data from a separate University of California. Results Mean differences. Protestants (M 5 3. STUDY 3 The goal of Study 3 was to provide converging evidence that religious motivations are viewed differently by members of different religious cultural groups.

9A 3. nnnp .12 0.1B Jews Protestants SE 0.0A 4.18 0.01.1AB 0.16 0.7AB 4.11 0.Table 5 Estimated Marginal Means (Controlling for Religiosity and Spirituality) in Study 3 Catholics M 4. The between-subject df is 2 for all analyses.4B 3.9AB 3.11 0.4B 4.1B 3.11 Significance F 6.4A 4.0A 4.08 0.001. nnp .17 SE M SE M 5. n p .12 0.10 0. .12 4.05.15nnn 3.6A 0.36nn Intrinsic religiosity Extrinsic religiosity Extrinsic religiosity–social Extrinsic religiosity–personal Notes: dferror for analyses range from 326 to 327.76nnn 15.08 0. Means that do not share a subscript within a row differ significantly by post-hoc Bonferroni test.63n 5.

There was a significant effect of religious cultural group on the extrinsic-social subscale. ratings of the normativeness of extrinsic religiosity were not significantly correlated with ratings of the normativeness of intrinsic religiosity (r 5 . and since results were extremely similar. we present results for analyses that controlled for religiousness and spirituality self-ratings.92.2.6. with self-ratings of religiousness (r 5 À .001).36. We analyzed the following scales: intrinsic religiosity (9 items.4. On the extrinsic-personal subscale. SD 5 1. pso. 329) 5 7.92). ratings of the normativeness of extrinsic religiosity were negatively correlated with ratings of the normativeness of intrinsic religiosity (r 5 À . extrinsic religiosity (11 items.71). and post-hoc Bonferroni tests indicated that Protestants were lower than both Catholics and Jews (pso. we focused on the differing correlations of the extrinsic religiosity scale with intrinsic religiosity. a 5 .10.81). and Catholics and Protestants differed significantly (p 5 . We also conducted exploratory analyses on the extrinsic-social and extrinsic-personal subscales. who did not differ.Religion as Culture 729 SD 5 0. For Protestants.26) but were negatively correlated with self-ratings of . a 5 .001). po.9. there was also a significant effect of religious cultural group.001. and spirituality (r 5 À .07). and extrinsic-personal (3 items.001 and p 5 . MSE 5 1.02).83). There was also a significant effect of religious cultural group on spirituality self-ratings (F (2. For Catholics. p 5 .001).24. Protestants were significantly higher on intrinsic religiousness than were Jews. Protestants (M 5 3.0) were higher than Jews (M 5 2.001).16). SD 5 1.1) and Catholics (M 5 3. Correlational and moderator analyses. respectively). p 5 . a 5 . and self-rated spirituality. a 5 .69). To follow up on the findings in the prior study. such that Jews differed from Protestants (p 5 . po. Protestants also rated themselves marginally more religious than did Catholics (p 5 . Protestants and Catholics were not different (p 5 .36. We conducted analyses with and without controlling for self-ratings of religiousness and spirituality. extrinsic-social (3 items.001).009. self-rated religiousness.9. Religious culture had a significant effect on appropriateness ratings of the general extrinsic religiosity scale (Table 5). po.30.10) or Protestants (p 5 . po. SD 5 1.001). po. Catholics did not significantly differ from Jews (p 5 .005).

and the Catholic–Jewish difference (b 5 .21.24) were not significant.001). po. and self-ratings of spirituality (b 5 . For Catholics and Jews. p 5 . but more weakly. p 5 . the Jewish– Protestant difference (b 5 .001). po. Comparing Jews to Protestants. as in Study 2.32.001) and positively. p 5 .001) and spirituality (r 5 À .09).21).16.15.002).001).47. the differences in correlations of extrinsic religiosity normativeness ratings and self-ratings of religiousness (b 5 .15. and self-ratings of spirituality (b 5 . Comparing Catholics to Protestants. ratings of the normativeness of extrinsic religiosity were strongly and positively correlated with ratings of the normativeness of intrinsic religiosity (r 5 .21. p 5 . The Catholic–Protestant difference (b 5 . po. For Jews. we believe that the greater endorsement among Protestants of intrinsic religiosity items reflects a greater emphasis on the personal salience of religious identity.04) were all significant. po.07. p 5 . po. p 5 . we compared the differences in correlations as we did in Study 2.26) and spirituality (r 5 .05. the difference in correlations between extrinsic and intrinsic normativeness ratings was significant (b 5 . p 5 . We next explored whether controlling for self-rated religiosity would explain the group differences in correlations between the normativeness of extrinsic religiosity and intrinsic religiosity. Our exploratory analysis of patterns for the extrinsic-social and extrinsic-personal scales followed similar patterns as the global extrinsic scale.20. religious identity seems collectivistically grounded in that extrinsic religiosity items are more strongly endorsed. po. self-ratings of religiousness (b 5 . the differences in correlations between extrinsic and intrinsic normativeness ratings (b 5 . the differences in correlations between extrinsic and intrinsic normativeness ratings (b 5 . As we proposed in Study 2. we replicated here the finding that extrinsic (collectivistic) religious motivations are antithetical to the .22.22. Using moderated regressions. with self-ratings of religiousness (r 5 . Furthermore. p 5 .004). p 5 .002) were also all significant.03) in correlations were all still significant when controlling for self-rated religiosity.15.16. p 5 . However.43) or between extrinsic religiosity normativeness ratings and self-ratings of spirituality (b 5 . Comparing Catholics to Jews.31.730 Cohen & Hill religiousness (r 5 À . p 5 .23.40. self-ratings of religiousness (b 5 .001).001). Summary.

4. Education was coded from 1 (elementary school) to 5 (graduate degree). M 5 3. Some resembled the prototypical. whereas having a social experience would be positively correlated with extrinsic religiosity. The data being analyzed here come from a project that focused primarily on forgiveness (Cohen. For Catholics. 2006). We also predicted that the likelihood of having an experience involving God would correlate positively with intrinsic religiosity. spiritually transformative. There was a very wide range of experiences reported. just say you haven’t. intrinsic motivations for Protestants but not for Catholics and Jews. SD 5 0.88) and extrinsic religiosity scales (a 5 . these data also document some effects of religious cultural norms on emotional and meaningful experiences. If so. we hypothesized that such experiences would commonly be social. Method Participants and procedures.04). . SD 5 7.Religion as Culture 731 more individualistic. Our goal was to determine whether differences in social versus individualistic aspects of religious identity would emerge in this less-structured format. and especially Jews. We asked participants to describe life-changing experiences as follows: ‘‘Have you ever had an experience that significantly changed the way you approach life or the world? If not. Most participants were students at an East Coast or West Coast research university.0. et al. In addition to speaking to the differing salience of individualistic and collectivistic aspects of religion. narrative descriptions of important experiences in their lives.. We hypothesized that such experiences for Protestants would commonly involve a personal encounter with God. The age range of the sample was 17 to 58 (M 5 23. please tell us about the experience in a few sentences: Where were you? What was the experience like? What emotions did you experience? How did the experience change you?’’ Participants also completed the intrinsic religiosity (a 5 . Results and Discussion Sample narratives.81). STUDY 4 In this study. Measures. Most participants were women (n 5 91).85. and the twoitem identity scale (a 5 . with 35 men. we obtained participants’ open-ended.93).

21n . concrete. and infinitely loving.25nn . np . were simply wrong.01.07 God .21n À . One participant described his or her experience as follows: The most important experience in my life was the moment that I first accepted that Jesus Christ really was God Himself.21n À .11 . I couldn’t just treat Him as I treated an idea or a philosophy. all of the vague nebulous self-conceived ideas I’d had about God.01 À .05. He wasn’t an idea. Here was a God who was real.32nnn À .10 À . nnnp . Here was a God who had created me and knew me completely.732 Cohen & Hill born-again experience described by Starbuck (1900) and James (1902/1997). nnp . male was coded as 1 and female as 0.10. following it when it was easy and abandoning it when it interfered with what I wanted. He was a reality. a God who suffered and died for me. For sex. . If Jesus Christ was who he said he was then there weren’t an infinite number of ways to God. there was One. yes was coded as 1 and no was coded as 0.11 . I remember sitting in my bedroom crying because I was deeply upset and angry. w p . That night. I would have to give Him my life. Table 6 Correlations of Social and God Codes With Demographics and Religiosity Scales in Study 4 Code Social God code Intrinsic religiosity Extrinsic religiosity Identity Sex Age Education À . And I was angry because I knew that I wouldn’t be able to go on living however I wanted with God consigned to some ethereal realm of ideals.16w Notes: For both the social code and the God code.10 .001. I put my trust in Him for the first time.31nnn À . Then everything I’d believed before. in spite of all my anger and frustration.

92. and 58 no. with 13 disagreements (K 5 . Finally.70. The God and social code were modestly and negatively correlated with each other. coding reliabilities were at acceptable levels. 68 were coded no by both coders. yes was coded as 1. 68 essays were coded yes.001). Intrinsic . The two coders then got together with an author to discuss discrepancies. 44 essays were coded no by both coders. often in a religious context: When my brother died my father started attending minyan [the participant is referring to daily Jewish services] every day. 71 coded were yes by both coders. and no was coded as 0. These codes were not designed to be mutually exclusive. po. I understood then that my human relationships were all that gave meaning to my life but that the humans that I related to were a much larger group than the people I would meet during my lifetime. The sample of 126 essays were separated from the rest of the data and coded by two independent coders (blind to condition and hypotheses) on a binary scale (yes/no) whether the experiences importantly involved God and connection to other people.65. age. and 61 were coded yes. and the religious identity scale (Table 6). Revised decisions were reached. Correlational analyses. For each category (God or social). po.001). 69 essays were coded no by both coders. For the social code. Remaining disagreements were decided by an author. I was aware that it was the rituals and other men there that made him feel better—not any idea that God had intended this—he used religion as a subverbal tool to connect him with other people now as well as forward and backward in time in his mourning.89.001). There remained five disagreements (K 5 . For the God code. Initially. and 75 no. and there were 7 disagreements (K 5 . and 53 were coded yes. There were 15 disagreements (K 5 . For the God code. Fifty-one essays received yes for the God code. 48 essays were coded no by both coders. as follows: For the social code. for the social code. po.001).Religion as Culture 733 Other participants’ descriptions were focused on connections to other people. intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. He said it comforted him greatly. education. po. and 40 were coded yes. We correlated God and social codes with gender. Narrative coding. after discussion.

Protestant) did show some significant differences.47. Protestants (M 5 4. SD 5 1. For the God code. p 5 . For the social code.30.04).001. SD 5 0. SD 5 0.0).76) scored lower than Catholics (M 5 3. there was a significant effect of religion.35.005. a significantly higher percentage of Protestants (84.55. po. w2 (2 df) 5 21. F (2.001. F (2. p 5 . MSE 5 0.6. SD 5 2. there were significant differences on intrinsic religiosity.5%) and Protestants (40%) were coded as yes. For the two item religious identity scale.3.09.60). Jews (M 5 27. but was negatively correlated with the God code.14.84. p . a marginally significant higher percentage of Jews (68. p 5 . SD 5 5. F (2. p 5 . As in prior studies. F (2. SD 5 0.74. who did not differ (p 5 .66.42. The two-item religious identity scale was not significantly related to the social code but was positively correlated with the God code.0.001. SD 5 0. SD 5 0.5%) and Jews (27.74. p 5 .005) and Protestants (M 5 21.2%) than Catholics (51. Extrinsic religiosity was not significantly related to the social code.03).22). we present data from the subset of participants who were Catholic (n 5 33). who did not differ (p 5 . SD 5 0. Catholics (M 5 3.71) and Protestants (M 5 4.3%) were coded as yes. SD 5 0.40. And there were some differences in education levels between the religious cultural groups.001) who did not differ (p 5 1. F (2. p 5 .4. po. Protestants (M 5 2.64. po.001) and Jews (M 5 3. The only significant difference was between Jews (M 5 3. we investigated the likelihood of social and God experiences in the religious groups. or Protestant (n 5 45). Jewish (n 5 22). SD 5 12.4. but a greater likelihood of a yes for the God code.001).03. 97) 5 15.43. 97) 5 10.82.3. MSE 5 0. p 5 . MSE 5 50. By post-hoc Bonferroni tests.02.94) were older than Catholics (M 5 22. po. p’s .61) did not significantly differ from either of the other groups. SD 5 po. Jews (M 5 3.4. The ages of the three religious groups (Catholic.16. For the extrinsic religiosity scale.4%) than Catholics (54.55. For the following analyses.0.05) and Protestants (M 5 3. 97) 5 5.55. MSE 5 0.1.34).66) were higher than Catholics (M 5 3. Jewish.001) and Catholics (M 5 2. MSE 5 1. . 97) 5 3. Religious differences. SD 5 1. there was also a significant effect of religion.6.7.7. SD 5 0. w2 (2 df) 5 4. SD 5 1. Next. 97) 5 12.734 Cohen & Hill religiosity predicted a lower likelihood of a yes on the social code.74) scored lower than both Jews (M 5 3.4.001.

p 5 .001) did not explain the effect (bs are the effects of religion on God category codes). . po.07). Again. Controlling for extrinsic religiosity also did not reduce the effect of religion. intrinsic religiosity was negatively related to social experiences. and this is also consistent with our demonstration that extrinsic religiosity was negatively correlated with God-centered experiences. the correlations we observed between God-centered experiences with intrinsic religiosity underscore our prior findings that intrinsic religiosity is related to personal faith. Controlling for intrinsic religiosity. The effects of religious group also did not seem to be explainable by religiousness. The effect of religion ( Jewish or Protestant) was also significant when predicting likelihood of having social experiences.005). whereas extrinsic religiosity is much more related to the collective. Furthermore.03.57. Individually controlling for gender (b 5 À . p 5 . We used regression analyses to further explore Jewish–Protestant differences. Of importance. Predicting likelihood of having an essay coded as involving God.Religion as Culture 735 As in previous studies. the effect of religion was still significant (b 5 À .26. Jewish was coded as 1 and Protestant as 0. All of these results converge to suggest that intrinsic religiosity is tapping individualistic religious outlooks. po. po.26. or education (b 5 . are more likely to be centered around the collective. p 5 . po. Their life-changing experiences are more likely to focus on a personal encounter with God.03). and neither did controlling for the two item religious identity scale (b 5 À . (b 5 À .05) did not reduce the size of the effect of religion. as in prior studies. b 5 À . b 5 . p 5 .08).001).47. and particularly of Jews.001).33. p 5 . education (b 5 À . bs are the effects of religion while controlling for the stated covariate.001). po. p 5 .57.09) also did not meaningfully change the effect sizes.25. po. p 5 . extrinsic religiosity (b 5 . or religious identity salience (b 5 . In contrast.04) or age (b 5 . Summary. the effect of religion ( Jewish or Protestant) was significant and large. as controlling for gender (b 5 .27. the differences between Jews and Protestants were largest. Our analyses again suggest that Protestants are more individualistic than Catholics and especially Jews. the experiences of Catholics. Controlling for intrinsic religiosity (b 5 .25.001).50. This difference was also not explainable by demographics.27. or age (b 5 À . p 5 .

736 GENERAL DISCUSSION Cohen & Hill Theologians. For example. However. it is important to conceptualize and operationalize religiousness and spirituality appropriately. Lehman. by and large. Moreover. shall mean for us the feelings. Cohen. 2005. do not base religious identity on community affiliation. James (1902/1997) saw religion as an individualistic phenomenon: ‘‘Religion. historians. acts. There are many reasons why this might be the case. Cohen and Rozin (2001) found that American Jews and Protestants did not differ in the independent/interdependent self-construal scales of Singelis (1994). In several studies. How to accomplish this has been a vexing problem (e. 2002). our results can thus be seen as evidence that differences in religious groups can be understood as differences in culture. If our proposal is that Catholics and Jews are collectivistic and Protestants individualistic.. and experiences of Catholics and Jews are more socially and community oriented than those of Protestants. social relationships. 1985. and sociologists have claimed that American Protestant religion focuses strongly on a personal relationship with God and that Americans. and . as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it. Hall. 2003). Perhaps Jews and Catholics are more community oriented only in the domains of religion or spirituality. psychologists. we have produced the first clear evidence that American Jews and Catholics resonate more with collectivistic aspects of religion and spirituality than do Protestants. it may seem a natural place to start to use established scales to measure self-construal (e. therefore. Singelis. et al.. who are more religiously individualistic. To our knowledge. Reference group effects are another intriguing possibility (Heine.g. the focus of most cultural research. Snibbe & Markus. using quite different measures. Implications for Conceptualization of Religiousness and Spirituality With increasing interest in religiousness and spirituality among social and medical scientists. Hill & Pargament. motivations. Or perhaps Singelis’s scales are better suited for East–West cultural differences. Peng. and classic theorists have had fundamentally different approaches. 2003).g. tradition. and ritual (Bellah et al. & Greenholtz. we have shown that the religious and spiritual identities. 1994).

for example. Pargament . In fact. Of interest. Spirituality has been proposed as being both more universal and more individualized than religiousness (Hill & Pargament. and freeing. with their focus on that which is individual. 42. for a more elaborate discussion). Durkheim (1912/1995) understood religion as inherently social because sacred objects symbolize the society and religion unifies people into a community: ‘‘A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things. 44). subjective. Hall. Allport and Ross theorized that extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity would be inversely correlated but were apparently surprised to discover that they were orthogonal.Religion as Culture 737 experiences of individual men in their solitude. 2004). self-directing. that is to say. may reflect a Protestant perspective.. For example. (1985) also suggested that the growing American emphasis on spirituality could be the result of the cultural development of religion as increasingly privatized. italics in original). Recently. as well as with attempting to create definitions of religiousness and spirituality that apply equally well to diverse religious cultures. those high in both intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity were dubbed ‘‘indiscriminately pro-religious. They therefore developed a four-fold classification. 2000. Contemporary conceptions of spirituality. 1985. it can be argued that spirituality is a term adopted by Protestants as a way of communicating that their religion focuses primarily on a personal and individual—not institutional—relationship to God. But this is not the only kind of critique that has been leveled. We found mean differences and differing intercorrelations among intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity (Studies 2 and 3). That is. so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine’’ (p. Bellah et al. Koenig. 1989). it is not surprising that an individualistic spirituality flourishes well in a society that is otherwise strongly secular where the individualistic character of Protestantism dominates (see Hill et al. and experientialexpressive. which many researchers have maintained. theorists have struggled over how religiousness and spirituality are similar or different. which is somewhat paradoxical (Bellah et al. unsystematic. all those who adhere to them’’ (p. inward. & Meador..’’ There have even been arguments that the scales should not be used any longer because of their questionable psychometric properties (Kirkpatrick. 2003). things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which united into one single moral community called a Church. personal.

& Nisbett.. Cohen & Hall. mutually constitutive relationships with core cultural ideals (Fiske. For Protestants. We propose that.. 2005). because identity and motivation processes have deep. and social context (Hall et al. 2002. First. 2004. 2005). Based on these lines of work. It remains a challenge for future research to generate ways of measuring religious and spiritual identity and motivation that recognize how cultures differ without explicitly or implicitly privileging certain motivations. Moberg. In this vein. Hill & Pargament. negatively correlated. death anxiety (Cohen. Cohen & Rankin. Pierce. this prior work. along with the current studies. but for Jews. 2002). Rather. Our results shed considerable light on this nearly long-standing debate in that they demonstrate that the psychometric properties of the religious orientation scale depend on religious group. they are. A second theoretical approach would claim not only that religious group differences are to be seen as cultural differences but also that religious differences may promote country differences in psychological processes. and wellbeing (Cohen. 2001).. 2003. Our approach recognizes the futility of developing a single definition or a single measure of religiousness and spirituality independent of a broader religious.738 Cohen & Hill (1992) claimed that religion is appropriately viewed both as a means and as an end. 2004. we propose that different religious motivations are valued in different religious cultures and that this needs to be recognized when conceptualizing and measuring religious motivations. Perhaps some of the differences observed in the wealth . cultural. Markus. Kitayama. we suggest three complementary theoretical approaches in regard to future directions on religion and culture. forgiveness (Cohen. 2003. in fact. 1998). are most clearly relevant to the view that religious group differences can be conceptualized as cultural differences that shape personal and social aspects of religious and spiritual motivation. et al. we do not recommend abandoning the scales because the interrelationships differ among religious groups. moral judgment. they are positively correlated. and other processes. Cohen & Rozin. 2006). religious identity and motivation must be understood within a cultural framework. et al. Some Future Directions in Culture and Religion The current work has approached religious group differences as cultural differences—as has converging work on morality (Cohen.

1994. Does this tendency to place emphasis on a scriptural or other religious notion related to personal faith.e. there is a rich set of beliefs and values from which one could choose. the image of which has been variously interpreted as the people of God (as community). the church). Hindu India might be a natural place to extend the current work. Shweder et al.g. reflect a cultural context that stresses individualism? And. one could view religions as subcultures (such as viewing Protestantism as a subculture in America). Given Shweder and Miller’s extensive work on interpersonal bases of moral judgment in Hindu India (e.. it is clear that the community (i. Within any religious tradition. the temple of the Holy Spirit (stressing the Trinitarian concept of the church as a relational institution. or the body of Christ (stressing the interconnectedness of the church) with Christ as head and believers as other parts (Erickson. in fact. believe that the relationship between religion and country-related processes is probably bidirectional and constantly culturally evolving. whether local or universal. plays a critical role in Protestant theology and is based on Christ’s strong constitutive declaration ‘‘I will build my church’’ (Matt. a relationship not mediated by the church. Great sophistication could be added to this work by focusing not only on the religious groups we have examined (Catholics. as we have speculated above. 1985). collective in nature). Yet the dominant strand in American Protestantism is a pietistic approach that stresses an individual’s direct relationship to God.. We feel there is promise in all these theories and. Two lines of future work that could speak to these theoretical issues are on different religious groups in different countries and work on religious denomination differences. It promises to be a fascinating direction for future research to attempt to disentangle effects of country of origin from effects of religious and spiritual group memberships. A third theoretical perspective is that country differences produce religion differences. Miller & Bersoff. and Protestants in the United States) but on other religious groups in different countries.. The church is a collective entity. 1997).Religion as Culture 739 of research on country differences in individualism and collectivism can be partly attributed to religious differences. For example. . Under this perspective. perhaps it is this same cultural context that partly explains the current interest in an interior notion of spirituality. even as other scriptural notions related to the collective are perhaps deemphasized. Jews. 16:18).

at the time of its founding in the late 1800s. much of Europe). (1991). 5. Rather. and the morality of mentality. Garden City. whether Protestants living in Asian countries are more collectivistic than those in Western countries. & Tipton. M. perhaps to a lesser extent. Swidler. 3. & Ross. L. W. W. A.. M. Asian American). Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. R. 432–443. G.. Berkeley: University of California Press. Individual and his religion: A psychological interpretation. 273–285. R. Religion. such as comparing Reform to Orthodox Jews or Episcopalians to Baptists. likelihood of action. Cohen. G. (2002).g. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Similar questions could also be asked about Protestants in the United States of different ethnic cultures (e. in Catholicism. NY: Doubleday. ethical teachings.. and it would be interesting to know. (1985). Allport. (1950). monotheism. Nature of prejudice. African American. 1957). Bellah. Korea. B.. much research has been conducted on Caucasian Protestants in the United States. New York: Macmillan. Similar distinctions can also be found in Protestantism and. (2003). Journal of Happiness Studies. for example. . REFERENCES Aiken. A. Allport. S. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sullivan. (1967).. S.. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. M. Thousand Oaks.g. There are large pockets of Protestants in other countries (e. S. CA: Sage. and findings could be used as a platform to explore Protestant motivation in various countries. W. Madsen. J. G. 287–310. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. B. claimed that much traditional ritual was a hindrance to spiritual elevation (but the Reform movement has more recently advocated adherence to ritual. Furthermore. The importance of spirituality in well-being for Jews and Christians. we have not attended in these studies to the meaningful denominational differences within overall religious groups. (1958). as well as among different religious denominations. Allport. G. 13.. N.. A. American Reform Judaism. Investigations of identity and motivation among different religious groups in different countries. and personal spiritual elevation were Reform Judaism’s main concerns (Glazer. could begin to speak to the different theoretical models on culture and religion that we have proposed. particularly if it is personally meaningful). for example. W. Cohen. & West.740 Cohen & Hill Furthermore.

death anxiety. G. S. Markus. (2004). Meade. T. The cultural matrix of social psychology. Democracy in America (G. & Koenig. Jr. Hall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. A. (1969). (2003). McCullough. 51–77. Larson.. Cohen.. Jr. Kitayama.. (2001). Cohen. NY: Anchor Books. Cohen. S. E. (1998). L.. H. Garden City. Basic & Applied Social Psychology. Fiske. Peng. Religion and the morality of mentality. New York: Free Press.. 9. (2002). B. & Rankin. 386–401. C. A. What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales. points of departure. Religion and the morality of positive mentality.. B. Hill. 307–324... E. G. Elementary forms of religious life (trans. J. Lehman. Cohen.. Koenig. Rozin. 81. MI: Baker Book House. R. (2005). Malka. Implications for physical and mental health research. & Rozin.. Heine. Siegel.. belief in the afterlife.. Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality. Fields). Cohen. G. A. 903–918. E. Lindzey (Eds.. Hill. & Meador. J. & Meador. Gorvine. European Journal of Social Psychology. et al. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. S. 47. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Pierce. P. P. M. B.. & Cherfas. H. Chambers. & Greenholtz. pp. 45–57. 697–710. 39. (Original work published 1835) Durkheim. Boston: McGraw-Hill. B. & Pargament. 58.. A. 229–249. Koenig.. Manuscript submitted for publication. (1995). Religion and unforgivable offenses. Christian theology. P. D. D.. R. trans). Gilbert... G. Vol. R. Pargament.. Handbook of social psychology (4th ed. Faith versus practice: Different bases for religiosity judgments by Jews and Protestants. J. D. Hill.. I. K. A. P. Sacred fragments: Recovering theology for the modern Jew. K.. J. Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality. N. 915–981). K. and life satisfaction in young Catholic and Protestant adults. D. C. Fiske.. & Hall. N.. K.. 287–295. B. Existential beliefs. Social versus individual motivation: Implications for normative definitions of religious orientation.. R.). 64–74. I. Lawrence. J. (1990). A.Religion as Culture 741 Cohen. . (1985). Hood. C. (2000). Glazer. (2004).. A. Hall. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.. 30. Giving religion away: What the study of religion offers psychology. J. (2006). A. 26. E. & G. 9. In D. (2005). 74. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. social satisfaction. I. J. A. E. H. P. 48–61. P. Jewish and Protestant older adults. W. de Tocqueville. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Grand Rapids. The referencegroup effect. B. H. B. Journal of Personality. D. & Nisbett. B. 82. American Judaism. American Psychologist. (1999). E. Journal of Research in Personality. Swyers. K. D. & Rozin. P. 85–118.. A. M. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 33. Gilman. B. (Original work published 1912) Erickson.. E. P. (2005). Personality & Social Psychology Review. (1957). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. R.. Cohen. J. and wellbeing among Catholic. Conceptualizing ‘‘religion’’: How language shapes and constrains knowledge in the study of religion and health. K. 2.. A.

W. 47–60. In M. R. Markus. 128. (1991). H. Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism: Their religious roots and monologic versus dialogic person–other relationship. 55. Psychological Bulletin. (1900). Vol. (2003). D. M. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. Psychological Review. Journey. Varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. 3–72. E. Snibbe. Mainstream personality psychology and the study of religion. London: Walter Scott. (1994). Brandt & P.. (2003). R. (1999).). R. A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. E. . Santayana.742 Cohen & Hill Inglehart. Massah. P. D. (1997).. L. Coon. H. Stanton. M. You can’t always get what you want: Educational attainment. pp. R.. Communities of assent and descent. Mahapatra. 1–31). 65. Boulder. I. community.. & Baker. Sampson. & Park. N. 67. In A. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. (1995). Research on the social scientific study of religion: A research annual (Vol. 703–720. The life of reason. Starbuck. Psychology of religion: An empirical study of the growth of religious consciousness. New York: Routledge. (1997). & Bersoff. (2002). Journal of Adult Development. & Pargament. C. 19–51. Religion: An overlooked dimension in cross-cultural psychology. 119– 169). 20. C. Much. 88. 201–229. McCrae. Of means and ends: Religion and the search for significance. & Kemmelmeier. Reason in religion. G. 20. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition. Triandis. E. 13. M. Psychological Inquiry. Journal of Personality. 98. The ‘‘big three’’ of morality (autonomy.. and the persistence of traditional values. Snibbe. W. Modernization. O. Rozin (Eds. A.. Assessing and measuring spirituality: Confronting dilemmas of universal and particular evaluative criteria. N. (2000). Moberg (Eds. New York: Touchstone. J. S. A. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. & Markus. 1. 377–394. Journal of the New Zealand Council of Christians and Jews. D. 3. agency. (1992). L. R.. 2. H. R. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. G. Tarakeshwar. C. American Sociological Review. New York: Dover. emotion and motivation. H..). Morality and health (pp. R. O. and choice. Singelis.. A.. (2000). 580–591. Cultural influences on the moral status of reciprocity and the discounting of endogenous motivation. E. (2005). 2–4. & Markus. M. Moberg. 3. & Kitayama. The measurement of independent and interdependent selfconstruals. divinity) and the ‘‘big three’’ explanations of suffering. Oyserman. (2002). 224–253. The psychology of religion and the religion of psychology. 9. D. 1425–1432. Pargament.. K. (1989). James. K. H. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. cultural change. CT: JAI Press. 592–602. J. M. T. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. (Original work published 1902) Kirkpatrick. L. 229–234. I. (1997).. (1982). C. Morris. 34. CO: Westview. Greenwich. Miller. (Original work published 1905) Shweder. 1209–1218. American Psychologist. Lynn & D. (1994). M. Individualism and collectivism.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful