THE RELIGIOSITY OF LOYOLA COLLEGE STUDENTS- A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY

Loyola College Research Park

Project Report

Submitted by

Komol Palma 16-USO-048

Under the Guidance and Supervision

Of

Rev.Fr. A. Louie Albert, S.J.

Assistant Professor

Department of Sociology,
Loyola College (Autonomous)
Chennai-600034
January- 2019
 CERTIFICATE FROM THE SUPRERVISOR

I certify that the project entitled “THE RELIGIOSITY OF LOYOLA COLLEGE STUDENTS- A SOCIOLOGICAL
STUDY” submitted to the Loyola Research Park, by Mr. Komol Palma is the bona fide report of the
research work carried out by them during the period 03/08/2018 to 31/01/2019 under my guidance
and supervision, and that this work is free from any kind of plagiarism and that it is completely original.

Place: Chennai

Date: 31 January 2019 Signature of the Supervisor

 DECLARATION
I, Mr Komol Palma, hereby declare that the project entitled “THE RELIGIOSITY OF LOYOLA
COLLEGE STUDENTS-A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY” Submitted to the Loyola Research Park is the
bona fide report of the research work carried out by us during the academic year 2018-2019
under the guidance of Rev.Fr. A. Louie Albert, S.J. Assistant Professor, Department of
Sociology, Loyola College.

Place: Chennai

Date: 31 January 2019 Signature of the Students.

 Acknowledgement
We thank the management of Loyola College for providing us this Minor Research Project through which
we have learned the rudiments of research. It has enriched our knowledge. We are grateful to Prof.
Louie Albert S.J., our guide for extending his guidance and help whenever needed. He had inspired us to
take up the subject and directed us throughout the project.

We extend our thanks to Rev. Fr. A.M. Jayapathy Francis, S.J., college Rector, Rev. Fr. D. Selvanayakam
S.J., Secretary, and our Principal Rev. Fr. Andrew, S.J, for their blessings and support. We are thankful to
Dr. S. Vincent, Dean of Research for providing us with the opportunity to learn more and explore the
unexplored. We are thankful to the office of Dean of research for providing us with instructions and
clarifications. We also thank Dr. M. Gautaman, Head of the Department and all the professors of
Department of Sociology.

We thank all our friends and family for their love, support and care.
 ABSTRACT
“THE RELIGIOSITY OF LOYOLA COLLEGE STUDENTS-A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY”

Students come from different religious, social, ethnic, linguistic and political
background. They have goals to achieve. They have quest for meaning in life. The
popular assumption is that the students grow in age, experience and education, they
become less religious. They get rid of the control of parents. This is the trend in history.
Students, who are doing their studies in Loyola College, are part of larger student body.
The students wrestle with the ideas of theism, atheism, skepticism and agnosticism.
Either they become indifferent to religious views, practices, values or they become
passionately involved and influenced by such thoughts. This study is to discover the
religious mindedness of students studying in Loyola College. The study will examine the
depth of religious values, intensity of faith, the degree of the influence of religion on
their personal lives. Almeida and Koenig (2006) have defined religiosity as “an
organized system of beliefs, practices, rituals, and symbols designed to facilitate
closeness to the sacred or transcendent (God, higher power, or ultimate truth or
reality). The term religiosity refers to strong belief in religion. In other words, it is the
intensity of understanding the essence of religion.

Key words: Religiosity, Religion, sacred and profane, rituals, customs, traditions.
 Table of Content
Certificate from the supervisor

Declaration

Acknowledgement

Abstract

Chapter 1 Page No

INTRODUCTION 1-3

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4-10

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 11-12

Chapter 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 13-33

Chapter 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY 35

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

“THE RELIGIOSITY OF LOYOLA COLLEGE STUDENTS-A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY”

Religion refers to beliefs and practices, creeds and institutional dimensions. Religiosity is
understood in terms of faithfulness, adherence, and depth of understanding of scripture.
Religiosity refers to how devoted an individual is to his/her own religion, while religion refers to
the beliefs the individual has. Religion refers to a system of beliefs, rites, and forms of
organization, ethical norms and feelings about the divine which help human beings to
transcend and make sense of life. In short we can say religiosity refers to the intensity of
following the essence of religion. Popular religiosity is the equivalent of the religion of the
common people, or popular piety, the way common people live their religion. It contrasts with
official religiosity, which characterizes the specialists and elites. There are several differences
between these two kinds of religiosity in the book ‘Religion popular’ (Dupront, 1987). The same
idea has been amplified by Poupard.

The first difference is that official religiosity considers the

foundational hierophant, or manifestation of the sacred, to be very important. The more
complex religious systems have specialists who analyze the contents of the original sacred
mysteries and consider them as something to be preserved and protected. On the other hand,
popular religiosity pays attention to ritual practices and how to obtain help from divine beings.
For example, in Buddhism, specialists discuss Buddha’s thoughts on nirvana and the value of
religious silence to assure transcendence, while the common people take part in rites honoring
Buddha in order to obtain favors in day-to-day life. The second difference is that official
religiosity is transmitted by the mechanisms of socialization within each religious institution,
such as formal instruction or catechesis. In short religion is a codified system of beliefs and
practices, whereas religiosity is excessively or obtrusively to one’s own religion. It is the
intensity of following the essence of religion.

Emile Durkheim in his book ‘The Elementary forms of

religious life’ defines religion as a “unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred
things, that is to say things set apart and forbidden”.

James G. Frazer, in his ‘The Golden Bough’ considered religion a belief in “powers superior to
man who are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.”

1
Edward Sapir, an American anthropologist, says that “the essence of religion consists in man’s
never ceasing attempt to discover a road to spiritual serenity across the perplexities and
dangers of life”.

MacIver and Page have defined, “Religion as we understand the term implies a relationship not
merely between man and man but also between man and some higher power”.

According to Ogburn, “Religion is an attitude towards superhuman powers”.

Max Muller defines religion as “a mental faculty or disposition which enables man to
apprehend the infinite.

Not all religions share the same set of beliefs, but in one form or
another, religion is found in all known human societies. Even the earliest societies on record
show clear traces of religious symbols and ceremonies. Throughout history, religion has
continued to be central part of societies and human experiences, shaping how individuals react
to the environments in which they live. Since religion is such an important part of societies
around the world.

Sociologists study religiosity of individuals. Religiosity is the intensity and

consistence of practice of person’s (or group’s) faith. Religiosity is usually measured by asking
people about their religious beliefs, their membership in religious organizations, and
attendance at religious services.

The modern study on religion was started by Emile Durkheim through his study on Suicide.
Through his work he explored the differing suicide rates among Protestants and Catholics.
Following Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber also looked at religion’s role and influence in
other social institutions such as economics and politics.

Almeida and Koenig (2006) have defined religiosity as “an organized system of beliefs,
practices, rituals, and symbols designed to facilitate closeness to the sacred or transcendent
(God, higher power, or ultimate truth or reality). The term religiosity refers to strong belief in
religion. In other words, it is the intensity of understanding the essence of religion.

In the contemporary society people come from different religious groups and they practice
their own culture, custom, traditions, rituals etc. Students come from different religious, social,
ethnic, linguistic and political background. They have goals to achieve. As mentioned in abstract
the popular assumption is that the students grow in age, experience and education, they
become less religious. So the main aim of this research study is to understand the extent of
religiosity and religious mind-set among Loyola College students. It will analyze the depth of
religious values, beliefs, intensity of faith and influence of religion on their personal lives. The

2
study also examines to understand the opinion of students towards their own religion and
problems created by it.

STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

As mentioned, the state of research problem is to understand the extent of religiosity and
religious mindset among Loyola College students. It is to find out why some students are deeply
religious and some are totally antagonistic towards religion.

Taking into account of the profile of the college students, the research includes various social
and personal factors and tries to analyze the influence of religion on their personal lives.

Aim
• To understand the extent of religiosity and religious mind-set among Loyola college
students.

OBJECTIVES
1. To understand the connections between social environment and religiosity
2. To know the mind set of students towards religion.
3. To examine the degree religiosity among students.
4. To find out the influence of religion on their lives.

3
 CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Religiosity Defined: When one thinks about religiosity, many different concepts could come to
mind: God, prayer, temple, sacredness, profane, faith, belief, ritual, sacred scriptures,
sacraments, devotion, and relationship with higher power. These all are the aspects of
religiosity. The term religiosity is difficult to define at least for two reasons. The first reason is
the imprecise nature of English Language. According to Roget’s Thesaurus, (Lewis, 1978,
Religiosity is found to be synonymous with such terms as righteousness, orthodoxy, faith,
piousness, devotion, and holiness. These terms bring out only the dimension of religiosity.

A second reason for the complexity is that it crosses several academic disciplines. Each of this
discipline looks at religiosity from different viewpoints. For example a theologian may address
religion from the view point of faith (Groome& Carso), while religious educator may focus on
orthodoxy and belief (Groome 1998). Psychologists might choose to address the dimensions of
devotion, piousness and holiness, whereas sociologists would consider the concept of religiosity
as church membership, church attendance, belief acceptance, doctrinal knowledge, and the
living faith (Cardwell, 1980).

Religiosity is a term that refers to strong religious belief and feeling. It is a term that is used to
describe practices that relate to institutional and social expressions of connectedness to
sacredness. A study done by Koenig, Parkerson, and Meador (1997) they identified three
dimensions of religiosity which were organizational, non-organizational, and intrinsic. The
organizational aspect of religion focuses on the frequency of attendance to religious services
(Koenig, Parkerson, & Meador, 1997). Non-organizational religiosity was categorized by the
amount of time spent in private religious activities (prayer, meditation, worship etc.). Finally,
intrinsic religiosity is the ways in which people assimilate religion into their daily lives (Koenig,
Parkerson, & Meador, 1997). Koenig, Parkerson, and Meador went on to say that religiosity is
best described as an “organized set of doctrines and rituals” (1997).
The definition of religiosity being used in the current study is a combination of definitions used
in previous research. The researcher defined religiosity as a belief in a supreme being and using
worship and doctrine that fosters spiritual life.

Religiosity and Spirituality

For the deeper understanding of our topic it is important to draw the distinction between
religiosity and spirituality. A person might be deeply religious but spiritually poor. A deeply
religious person will follow the religious practices and sacred scripture but will not know the
meaning behind of following all these. But a spiritual person will know the religion and will
follow the true spirit of religion. The spirit of religion can be called the spirituality of religion.

4
Religiosity means piety or the state of being religious. Being religious means excessively or
sentimentally religious or practice one’s religion in a meddlesome way. Therefore, religiosity is
characterized by excessive involvement in religious activities. Religiosity involves extreme zeal
outside the norms of one’s faith. It is more than affection for religion; it is affectation in
religion. Religiosity mirrors one’s individual beliefs more than those of religious organization
itself. Another term for religiosity, though less common, is religiousness, or the state of being
superficially religious.
The term religiosity is used by all the major religions to refer to religious activities in extreme.

Spirituality is one’s personal experience with God or the Supreme Being. According to Muldoon
and King (1995), spirituality is how people understand and live their lives, as well as how they
view their meaning and value. Vaughn (1991) stated that spirituality was more of an experience
of something sacred. Vaughn also described spirituality as “a quality that goes beyond religious
affiliation that strives for inspirations, reverence, awe, meaning and purpose, even in those who
do not believe in any good” (Vaughn, 1991, p. 105). Meezenbroek et al. concluded that
spirituality was a striving for a connection to self, others, nature, and the transcendent (2012).
A number of definitions for spirituality have been developed by countless disciplines.
Spirituality may be, “the way in which people understand and live their lives in view of their
ultimate meaning and value’’ (Muldoon & King, 1995, p. 336), as ‘‘a subjective experience of
the sacred’’ (Vaughan, 1991, p. 105). Poulin, Silver, and Holman define spirituality as the
individual and experiential commitment to a religious or spiritual belief system (2011). A broad
definition of spirituality as a universal experience is “one’s striving for and experience of
connection with oneself, connectedness with others and nature and connectedness with the
transcendent (Meezenbroek, Garssen, Berg, Dierendonck, Visser, &Schaufeli, 2012).
Conceptual analyses that have been done by past researchers (Dyson, Cobb, & Forman, 1997;
Cook, 2004; Chiu, Emblen, VanHofwegen, Sawatzky, &Meyerhoff, 2004; Reed, 1992) and
qualitative research (Hungelmann, Kenkel-Rossi, Klassen, &Stollenwerk, 1985; Fisher, 1998,
cited in Gomez & Fisher, 2003) have demonstrated the importance of connectedness in relation
to spirituality. The authors who recognize spirituality as a universal experience use the terms
12 “connectedness” or “relatedness” in the literature (Meezenbroek, Garssen, Berg,
Dierendonck, Visser, &Schaufeli, 2012).

Spirituality is very broadly defined as those things which give meaning and purpose and/or
connection to one's life and may or may not contain a religious component. It could be your
familial relationships, your friendships, your work, your faith, a connection to nature, your faith
in the God, your connection to the existential, etc. Spirituality includes a sense of connection
bigger than us. It is a universal human experience that touches us all. Spiritual experiences can
happen to individuals who do not consider themselves religious. For example, an individual can
experience nature in a spiritual manner and thus be deeply moved by this experience
(Meezenbroek, Garssen, Berg, Dierendonck, Visser, &Schaufeli, 2012). Thus, it is important to
consider all of the ways in which spiritual experiences may occur when developing a
measurement tool. Spirituality is truly a universal experience (Meezenbroek, Garssen, Berg,
Dierendonck, Visser, &Schaufeli, 2012).

5
Dimensions of Religiosity
Glock and Stark (1965) have been influential in defining religious orientations, origins, and
dimensions. Glock and Stark identified five dimensions of religiosity: experiential, ritualistic,
ideological, intellectual, and consequential. The experiential dimension focuses on the personal
faith experience, perhaps a transcendent encounter, while the ritualistic focuses on the
personal faith experience, perhaps a transcendent encounter, while the ritualistic. Certain
beliefs” (i.e., professed doctrines), and the intellectual dimension “has to do with the
expectation that the religious person will be informed and knowledgeable about the basic
tenets of his faith and sacred scriptures” (i.e., history, sacraments, morality; p. 20). Glock and
Stark admitted that these latter two dimensions are closely related, “Since knowledge of a
belief is a necessary condition for its acceptance”.

Glock and Stark admitted that these latter two dimensions are closely related, “Since
knowledge of a belief is a necessary condition for its acceptance.” The cognitive dimension is
concerned with what individuals know about religion, i.e., religious knowledge. The cultic
dimension makes reference to the individual’s religious practices, i.e., ritualistic behaviour. The
creedal dimension is concerned with a personal religious belief, and the devotional dimension
refers to a person’s religious feelings and experiences, i.e., the experiential dimension. Allport
and Ross (1967) identified two basic dimensions of religiosity: extrinsic and intrinsic. They
interpreted extrinsic religiosity as a self-serving and utilitarian outlook on religion that provides
the believer with comfort in salvation. These individuals are disposed to use religion for their
own ends, such as status, sociability, and self-justification, and often selectively shape a creed
to fit their own ends. A person with intrinsic religiosity is one who internalizes the total creed of
his or her faith and moves beyond mere church attendance. These individuals find their master
motive for life in religion, and their other needs are brought into harmony with their religious
beliefs:
“The extrinsically motivated person uses his religion, whereas the intrinsically motivated person
lives his religion” (p. 434). Again, this finding is similar to previously reported research.
Lenski (1963) identified four different ways in which religiosity might be expressed:
associational, communal, doctrinal, and devotional. Approaching religiosity from the lived
perspective, Allport and Ross (1967) originally designed the Religious Orientation Scale (ROS),
which was composed of an 11-item extrinsic scale to measure the extent to which individuals
use their religion for their own ends and a nine-item intrinsic scale to measure the extent to
which individuals live their religion.

The relationship between religion and Educational pursuit

The relationship between religiosity and education has been studied since the second half of
the 20th century. The parameters of the two components diverse: The level of religiosity which
is difficult to differentiate scientifically, while the level of education is easier to measure.
Different studies show contrasted conclusion between religiosity and education. Religiosity is
measured by the attendance at the places of worship, miracles, religious practices, etc. An
international study states that in some countries the intensity of beliefs decreases with
education.

6
A Pew Centre study about religion and education around the world in 2016, found that Jews are
most educated religious group around the world. Based on the study data, Muslims and Hindus
have the lowest average levels of education than any other major religious group, with only 8%
and 10% respectively have graduate and post-graduate degrees. Christian ranked as the second
most educated religious group around the world with an average of 9.3 years of schooling.
According to the study, Christians in North America, Europe, Middle East, North Africa and Asia-
pacific regions are highly educated since many of the world universities were built by the
historic Christian churches.
Buddhist has an average of 7.9 years of schooling and around 12% of Buddhists have graduate
and post-graduate degrees.
The father of sociology, August Comte (1858), purposed a secularization theory predicted that
by the end of the 20th century, religion would be replaced by science. A main part of his theory
purported that well-educated people would be less religious than poorly educated people
would. Comte believed that religious people would not have the desire to be educated, and
that those who did would eventually abandon their religious beliefs to secular knowledge. A
survey conducted by The Times of India revealed that 22% of IIT Bombay graduates do not
believe in the existence of God, while another 30% don’t know. Baum and Payea (2005)
reported in their study for the trends in higher education series that students who pursued
their postsecondary education gained an array of personal, financial, and other lifelong
benefits. Similarly society as a whole receives hosts of direct and indirect benefits when citizens
have access to postsecondary education. Baum and Payea also reported that the benefits of
participating in postsecondary education included higher earnings for all racial/ethnic groups
and for both men and women. Unless a person held strongly to a belief that contact with
modern western society and its values would be detrimental to the person’s well-being. Barton
(2008) stated that race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and Geography has a huge impact on
who has access to higher education in the USA and who receives its subsequent benefits. The
value of higher education noted makes it essential that religious, educational, and civic leaders
work to narrow the educational opportunity gaps in American society, given our democratic
and egalitarian ideals as a nation. A factor influencing educational decisions that has received
unprecedented attention over the past few decades is religiosity, a term used by religious
researchers that embodies one’s religious motivation, commitment, and behavior (Cornwall &
Cunningham, 1989; Glock & Stark, 1965; Johnstone, 1997: McGuire, 1992).The self-construction
proponents favour the concept that socio-moral development is achieved through interaction
in which the student develops a commitment to social norms through experience (Battistich,
Schaps, et al.,1991). The self-construction model is associated with cognitive developmental
theory (Kohlberg, 1969, 1976; Piaget, 1932/1965). Socio-moral values are actively constructed
by the individual through interaction with others and through participation in social groups.
Contemporary educators have become increasingly aware of the importanceof providing
students with educational opportunities that develop characteristics and skills in the cognitive
and behavioural aspects of moral judgment, as well as the affective domain (Graczyk et al.,
2000).

7
Religiosity and behaviour
There is a distinct relationship between religiosity and behaviour.Religion plays a prominent
role in the social fabric of nations and cultures around the world (Bahr &Forste, 1998).Some of
the early founders of the study of religion include Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and, as cited
earlier, Karl Marx. Studies of religiosity have uncovered correlations between religiosity and
other Variables. Religious adolescents are more likely to avoid risky behaviors
(Lippman,Michelsen, &Roehlekepartain, 2004) and to engage in positive activities (Bridges
&Moore, 2002).Smith and Faris (2002) indicate that adolescents who see themselves as
Religious are less likely to take risks or enjoy danger, engage in violent behaviors, or get in
trouble with the police. These adolescents are also less likely to skip school and to be suspended,
expelled, or sent to detention. Regnerus, Smith, and Fritsch (2003) found that Religious youth
are more likely than their nonreligious peers to engage in healthy behaviors such as exercising
regularly and wearing a seatbelt, and they have better eating and sleeping habits. Religious teens
also have lower rates of drug and alcohol abuse (McIntosh, Fitch, Wilson, &Nyburg, 1981;
McIntosh &Spilka, 1990; National Centeron Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, 2001). Udry (1988) found that religious youth had decreased levels of sexual activity.
“Even defining religiosity is a formidable task” (p 3). Social scientists often disagree on how to
define religiosity (Knowles, 2001). Glock and Stark (1965) employed the term “religious
commitment.” Johnstone (1997) preferred to define Religiosity as the intensity and consistency
with which we practice our religion. Students who plan to complete four years of college are
more likely than students who do not plan to attend or finish college to report that religion plays
a very important role in their lives. Dai (1996) found that religious involvement was related to
strong aspirations for higher education. This finding held true when controlling for factors such
as race and political orientation. Trusty and Watts (1999) studied a national sample of 13,000
U.S. high school seniors who were surveyed in 1988 and then again four years later in 1992.
Seniors who reported that religion was important were compared to those who felt it was not.
Those seniors who reported that religion was important had a better attitude towards
school,fewer problems with attendance, spent more time on homework, and did better
academically. Using this same study, Muller and Ellison (2001) found that personal religious
involvement remained modestly associated with desired behaviors in school. Astin and Astin
(2004) reported that students, who read sacred texts and other 20religious materials, attend
church, and who engage in religious singing have higher-than expected grades. They also found
that students with high religiosity had more satisfaction with their college experience, stronger
self-esteem, lower psychological distress, and higher self-rated physical health.

Religion and educational performance

Different studies show that there is a deep correlation between religiosity and education.
Social scientists often disagree on how to define religiosity (Knowles, 2001). Glock and Stark
(1965) employed the term “religious commitment.” Johnstone (1997) preferred to define
Religiosity as the intensity and consistency with which we practice our religion. Students who
plan to complete four years of college are more likely than students who do not plan to attend or
finish college to report that religion plays a very important role in their lives.Dai(1996) found
that religious involvement was related to strong aspirations for higher education. This finding
held true when controlling for factors such as race and political orientation. Trusty and Watts
(1999) studied a national sample of 13,000 U.S. high school seniors who were surveyed in 1988
and then again four years later in 1992. Seniors who reported that religion was important were

8
compared to those who felt it was not. Those seniors who reported that religion was important
had a better attitude towards school, fewer problems with attendance, spent more time on
homework, and did better academically. Using this same study, Muller and Ellison (2001) found
that personal religious involvement remained modestly associated with desired behaviors in
school. Astin and Astin (2004) reported that students, who read sacred texts and other 20
religious materials, attend church, and who engage in religious singing have higher-than
expected grades. They also found that students with high religiosity had more satisfaction with
their college experience, stronger self-esteem, lower psychological distress, and higher self-rated
physical health. Loury (2004) found a relationship between church activity as a teenager and
educational attainment in later life. Longitudinal data collected from a sample of youth in1979
and then 14 years later found that respondents who were active in their church as teenagers had
obtained more education than had those who were not. Loury concluded that both family and
religious influences contribute to performance in school. Not all studies have shown positive
correlations between religion and education.Rhodes and Nam (1970) looked at census data for
the United States and found that children with a Jewish or mainline Protestant mother were most
likely to attend college,whereas children with mothers who belonged to more fundamental or
conservative Denominations were less likely to attend.
Keysar and Kosmin (1995) studied women across 12 different religious affiliations and found
that women ages 18-24 who belonged to more conservative religions were less educated. The
higher the level of education attained, the lower the religious zeal. In a review of 10 years of
research (1985-1995) that examined religiosity and mental health among Latter-day Saints, Judd
(1998) found that LDS people who scored high on religiosity scales had significantly greater
marital and family stability, personal well-being, higher self-esteem, fewer incidents of
premarital sex and delinquency among adolescents, and less substance abuse. Results from a
recent study led by Christian Smith (2005), and published in SoulSearching: The Religious and
Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, showed that LDS youth, when compared to other
religious youth in America, are more knowledgeable about their faith, have a greater
commitment to it, and have more positive social outcomes associated with their faith.
Sociologists of religion have found that educational attainment conversely increases religiosity
for members of the LDS Church in the United States (Knowlton, 1998). However, Mauss (1994)
discovered that the LDS Church tends to follow the national trend of decreased religiosity for
those who study the arts, humanities, and social sciences. Religiosity was treated as the
independent (explanatory) variable and academic performance as the dependent (response)
variable. Another educational topic of study within the LDS Church explores religiosity and
literacy. The study looked at six aspects of literacy: value of scripture reading, engagement with
the scriptures, perception of reading ability, scripture reading proficiency, the number of days per
week students read scripture, and the number of minutes per reading occasion. The dimensions
of religiosity used in this study were private religious behavior, public religious behavior,
home/family religiosity, strength of belief, and dispositions of character.
Four questions about the Bible were used as an indicator of religious knowledge: (a) who wrote
the most books in the New Testament? (b) Is the Book of Acts an eyewitness account of Christ’s
ministry? (c) Name the last book of the Old Testament, and (d) Which Gospel narrates most fully
the events surrounding the birth of Christ? The study showed the following results for each
dimension of religiosity: Religious self-identification: Favored those who did attend college,
with 60%of them judging themselves to be very religious as compared to 39% of non-college
Educated respondents. 2. Belief: Showed a negative correlation, 94% of those who did not

9
graduate from high school believed the miracles did happen, compared to 74% of those with
college graduate degrees. This finding suggests that surety of belief in religious tenets diminishes
with more education.3. Experience: College-educated are more likely to have experienced a
spiritual confirmation, but the correlation is not significant: 79% of the non-college-educated
compared to 83% for college-educated.
In summary, college-educated Latter-day Saints in the United States were on average more
religiously involved than non college-educated Latter-day Saints, but were less likely to believe
in miracles. The BYU study showed that 100% of the students “strongly agreed” that they are
guided and comforted by their beliefs. Chadwick et al. declared: All these analyses make it
absolutely clear that members of the LDS Church [in the U.S.] have significantly more education
than the general public. The results demonstrate that among youth individual religiosity is
associated with academic success and aspirations. 55% say religion is very important in their
lives, and 40% attend religious services in a typical week. Nelson (1992) taught, “Our Creator
expects His children everywhere to educate themselves…. It is apparent that those who
impulsively ‘drop out’ and cut short their education not only disregard divine decree but frustrate
the realization of their own potential”(p.6).
It is clear that religiosity does have an overall positive impact on educational variables such as
academic attainment, plans to finish college, attitude about schooling, educational expectations,
and a deterrent effect on risky behaviors that jeopardize academic performance.

10
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research study has been designed by reviewing the available literature. A questionnaire
was developed to capture the necessary data required for the study. The methodology for
carrying out the research has been described detail in this chapter. The details with respect to
sample, design, the tools, the procedure followed for data collection are constituted in this
chapter.

Research Setting

The study was conducted among the students of Loyola College Chennai. The sample
population contained students from all departments. Students were informed about the study
and were asked to fill the questionnaires in their respective classrooms and also data was
collected randomly from the campus. The respondents were predominantly male and only
handful of female respondents were available for the study.

Research design

The research conducted was qualitative in nature which attempted to understand the degree of
religiosity and extent of religious mindset among Loyola college students. Hence the study
deployed questionnaire method and interview method. Random sampling was followed in this
study. The researchers met the students in the classrooms and libraries and questionnaires
were handed to them personally. The responses were recorded by the respondents themselves
in the questionnaires which had closed ended questions. After the data collection, the data was
subjected for further analysis.

Sampling Design

The number of samples for the study is 250. The respondents included both UG and PG .

Sources of data

The main source of data for the study is the responses provided by the student respondents in
the questionnaire belonging to the age group of 18-26 years. The questionnaire contained 30
close ended questions.

Tools of Analysis

The research study used sample survey and interview method for the desired study which falls
under qualitative tools of research, SPSS package was used for data analysis.

11
 Limitation of the research

As the researchers recorded more responses from male respondents rather than female
respondents, it is difficult to find the availability of female respondents for the research. The
number of female respondents is very less in number when compared with male respondents.

12
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Statistics
Age Category

Valid 200 200

N
Missing 0 0

Frequency of respondents based on age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

18-22 151 75.5 75.5 75.5

Valid 22-26 49 24.5 24.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 1

Chart No: 1

13
Table one suggests that about 75% of the students belong to the age group of 18-22. They are doing
their under graduation. About 24.5% of students are doing their post graduation

Frequency of respondents on the degree of faith

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Theist 124 62.0 62.0 62.0

Atheist 28 14.0 14.0 76.0

Agnostic 15 7.5 7.5 83.5

Valid
Don"t want to Comment 32 16.0 16.0 99.5

5.00 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 2

Pie chart depicting percentage of different age groups

Chart No: 2

14
 From the results of analysis, it is observed from the table no two that 62% of students are
theists, who believe in God. About 16% of students are not willing to reveal their religious
attachments.

Frequency of respondents based on department

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Arts 143 71.5 71.5 71.5

Science 42 21.0 21.0 92.5

Valid
Commerce 15 7.5 7.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 3

Chart No: 3

Table 3 points out that the 71.5% belongs to Arts department followed by Science constituting 21%. In
the given sample commerce constitutes only 7.5%.

15
Frequency distribution of respondents based on religion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Christian 116 58.0 58.0 58.0

Hindu 72 36.0 36.0 94.0

Valid Muslim 10 5.0 5.0 99.0

Other religion 2 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 4

Chart No: 4

From the above diagram it clearly shows that majority of the students belongs to
Christianity. Hindu constitutes second position and only few percentage represents Muslim
community. Out of the total sample few sample size belongs to other religion, which does not
belong to the above mentioned religions.

16
Frequency distribution of the respondents to determine whether they are forced
to believe in religion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 35 17.5 17.5 17.5

No 150 75.0 75.0 92.5

Valid Not applicable 14 7.0 7.0 99.5

6.00 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 5

Chart No: 5

From table 5 it clearly states that 75% of students are not forced to believe in their own
religion. So those include both theist and atheist. So we can conclude that there are people who
believe in religion even without any external force.

17
Frequency distribution representing the factor of force.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Family 33 16.5 16.5 16.5

Neighbors 4 2.0 2.0 18.5

friends 2 1.0 1.0 19.5

Valid Religious community 1 .5 .5 20.0

Any other 2 1.0 1.0 21.0

not applicable 158 79.0 79.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 6

Chart No: 6

From the analysis it is very clear that 79% of the students are not forced to believe in their own
religion. If they are forced family is the main factor which forces them to follow religion.

18
Frequency distribution representing how religion help to become efficient
member in society
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 114 57.0 57.0 57.0

No 33 16.5 16.5 73.5

Valid not at all 20 10.0 10.0 83.5

not applicable 33 16.5 16.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 7

Chart No: 7

From the table 7 it clearly states that 57% agrees with opinion that religion helps them to become
an efficient member in society. About 16.5% disagrees with the given opinion.

19
Frequency distribution representing how religion helps to become efficient
member in society.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

character formation 57 28.5 28.5 28.5

community bond 18 9.0 9.0 37.5

helping people 33 16.5 16.5 54.0

Valid volunteering for humanitarian
18 9.0 9.0 63.0
activities

not applicable 74 37.0 37.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 8

Chart No: 8
From the previous analysis majority of the sample size agrees with the opinion of religion which
helps to become efficient member in society. But when it is analyzed in terms of reasons
majority of them don’t want to comment on it. That is 37% has not given a valid reason for it.
According to the 28% of the total sample, religion helps them in their character formation. So we
can conclude by saying through character formation religion helps them to become the efficient
member in society.

20
Frequency distribution of the respondents based on graduation.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Ug 129 64.5 64.8 64.8

PG 69 34.5 34.7 99.5

Valid
3.00 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 199 99.5 100.0

Missing System 1 .5
Total 200 100.0

Table No: 9

Chart No: 9

Table 9 points out that from the total sample size, the data was collected from UG
department constituting 64.5% and PG represents 34.5%.

21
Cross tabulation representing the relation between- Participating own religious rituals *
and time spend for prayer.
Count

Time spend Prayer Total

Less than 30 30-45 1 hour not 5.00

minutes minutes applicable

yes 49 42 39 20 1 151

no 2 1 7 16 1 27

not at all 1 1 1 14 0 17
Participate own
not
religious rituals 0 0 0 2 0 2
applicable

5.00 2 0 0 0 0 2

14.00 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 54 44 47 52 3 200
Table No: 10

Chart No: 10

To examine the degree of religiosity 49 of them participates in their own religious rituals
and used to spend less than 30 minutes for prayer. Followed by 42 samples spend 30-45
minutes for prayer in a day. Close to it 39 respondents spend 1 hour for prayer and other rituals
in a day. Only 39n respondents do not take part in their own religious rituals.

22
Cross tabulation representing - Visiting Religious institutions and * The time spend for
Prayer.
Count

Time spend for Prayer Total

Less than 30-45 1 hour not 5.00

30 minutes minutes applicable

daily 5 23 14 2 1 45

once a week 24 14 15 8 0 61

once in fifteen
3 1 5 1 2 12
days

Visit Religious institutions once a month 14 0 6 8 0 28

once a year 3 3 4 9 0 19

any other 3 1 1 6 0 11

not applicable 2 2 1 18 0 23

44.00 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 54 44 47 52 3 200
Table No: 11

Chart No: 11

When the data is compared with the visit to religious institutions, college students used to do
their prayers in a regular manner. But visiting the religious institutions is very less in number.
Sample size of 24 only visits the institutions once a week and 14 respondents visits those places
once a month out of the total sample of 61 and 12 respectively.

23
Frequency table to determine whether respondents gain satisfaction by visiting
the religious institutions
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 143 71.5 71.5 71.5

No 29 14.5 14.5 86.0

not applicable 23 11.5 11.5 97.5

4.00 1 .5 .5 98.0
Valid
5.00 2 1.0 1.0 99.0

6.00 1 .5 .5 99.5

44.00 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 12

Chart No: 12

From the analysis it is very clear that 143 respondents (71.5%) gains satisfaction when
they visit their own religious institutions. Only 14.5% have the opinion of not gaining any
satisfaction from the religious institutions. So we can conclude that people gain some sort of
satisfaction when they visit their own religious institutions.

24
Frequency distribution of respondents to know the kind of satisfaction respondents get
from visiting religious institutions
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Material satisfaction 18 9.0 9.0 9.0

Emotional satisfaction 40 20.0 20.0 29.0

Spiritual Satisfaction 54 27.0 27.0 56.0

Mental satisfaction 42 21.0 21.0 77.0

Valid
any other 8 4.0 4.0 81.0

not applicable 34 17.0 17.0 98.0

7.00 4 2.0 2.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 13

Chart No 13

Table 13 points out that about 27% gains spiritual satisfaction when they visit their own religious
institutions. Secondly 21% gains mental satisfaction from those religious institutions.

25
Frequency distribution of the respondents to determine their beliefs in religious
sacrifices.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 77 38.5 38.5 38.5

No 49 24.5 24.5 63.0

not at all 33 16.5 16.5 79.5

Valid
no idea 26 13.0 13.0 92.5

not applicable 15 7.5 7.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 14

Chart No: 14

From the data analysis it is very clear that 38.5% of the total samples believe in the religious sacrifices
practiced by one’s own religion. Close to it 24.5% don’t believe in religious sacrifices and 13% doesn’t
have any idea about religious sacrifices.

26
Frequency distribution of the respondents based on their faith level.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Strong 84 42.0 42.0 42.0

weak 25 12.5 12.5 54.5

Neutral 55 27.5 27.5 82.0

Valid
no idea 19 9.5 9.5 91.5

not applicable 17 8.5 8.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 15

Chart No: 15

From the total size of 200, 84 respondents have a strong faith level which constitutes
around 42%. 27.5% are neutral and 12.5% are weak in their faith level. So we can conclude that
Loyola college students have a strong faith over their own religion.

27
Frequency distribution of respondents on Religious fundamentalism
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

good 57 28.5 28.6 28.6

Bad 63 31.5 31.7 60.3

No idea 59 29.5 29.6 89.9

not applicable 17 8.5 8.5 98.5

Valid
22.00 1 .5 .5 99.0

25.00 1 .5 .5 99.5

114.00 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 199 99.5 100.0

Missing System 1 .5
Total 200 100.0
Table No: 16

INTERPRETATION

From the data analysis it is very clear that majority of the youth do not support religious
fundamentalism. And next to it 29.5% doesn’t know about it. So it clearly states that present
youth are not influenced by conservative ideas of religion.

28
Frequency distribution to determine the opinion of respondents towards atheism.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Strongly Agree 43 21.5 21.5 21.5

Agree 59 29.5 29.5 51.0

Disagree 52 26.0 26.0 77.0

Strongly Disagree 27 13.5 13.5 90.5

Valid no idea 11 5.5 5.5 96.0

not applicable 6 3.0 3.0 99.0

11.00 1 .5 .5 99.5

33.00 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 17

Chart No: 17

From the total sample size, 29.5% agrees to the statement. They believe in atheism than
becoming strong devoted in certain situations of life. Only small proportion of the sample size
disagrees with the statement.

29
Frequency distribution of the respondents’ opinion with regard to the wrong
interpretation of text creating violence in society.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Strongly Agree 84 42.0 42.0 42.0

Agree 71 35.5 35.5 77.5

Disagree 9 4.5 4.5 82.0

Strongly Disagree 5 2.5 2.5 84.5

Valid
no idea 24 12.0 12.0 96.5

not applicable 6 3.0 3.0 99.5

11.00 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 18

Chart No: 18

From the analysis it is very clear that present youth have an idea of the violence’s that are
happening in our society in the name of religion. 42% of the college students strongly agree
with the statement. Only 2.5% disagree with the current statement.

30
Frequency distribution of respondents opinion with regards to the separation of politics from religion

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

yes 131 65.5 65.8 65.8

no 35 17.5 17.6 83.4

no idea 19 9.5 9.5 93.0

Valid
Not applicable 13 6.5 6.5 99.5

14.00 1 .5 .5 100.0

Total 199 99.5 100.0

Missing System 1 .5
Total 200 100.0

Table No: 19

Chart No: 19

Present youth are aware of the caste politics that is happening in our society. As a result they
feel the need to separate religion from politics. 65.5% strongly agrees for its separation.

31
 Frequency distribution of respondents opinion on religious altruism
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Good 59 29.5 29.5 29.5

Bad 31 15.5 15.5 45.0

meaningless 45 22.5 22.5 67.5

Valid
no idea 54 27.0 27.0 94.5

not applicable 11 5.5 5.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 20

Chart No: 20

From the analysis it is very clear that the college students don’t have a clear idea about the
term altruism. The persons who knows the exact meaning disagrees with the practice of
altruism with 15.5%.

32
Frequency distribution of respondents to determine their concern over religion.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Strongly Agree 58 29.0 29.0 29.0

Agree 89 44.5 44.5 73.5

Disagree 17 8.5 8.5 82.0

Valid Strongly Disagree 1 .5 .5 82.5

No idea 29 14.5 14.5 97.0

Not applicable 6 3.0 3.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table No: 21

Chart No: 21

From the analysis it is clear that present generation are not so religious. 44.5% agree with the
statement. That is present youth are least bothered about religion. Only 8.5% disagrees with
the statement.

33
 Chapter 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

After conducting the data analysis, the researchers have come to the conclusion that Loyola
college students are not religious. It doesn’t mean that they are atheist. They believe in their
own religion but they are not so conservative towards their own religion. The research shows a
contrast relationship between religion and religiosity. The faith level of Loyola College students
is strong but they are not deeply religious. They are not forced to follow any religion and to visit
the religious institutions. At the same time majority of the students believe that religion has
brought about changes in their lives in terms of spirituality. In order to analyze the degree of
religiosity among the students, the researchers employed various techniques. These techniques
were based in terms of their participation in religious rituals, the time they spent for those
rituals, sacrifices and satisfaction. The researchers have come to the conclusion that the degree
of religiosity among college students is neutral.

In focus group discussion the conclusion was drawn to know the opinion of youth to examine
the relationship between religion and society. From the analysis, it is very clear that present
youth are least bothered about religion. At the same time, they have a strong view on social
problems that occurs due to religion. The college students don’t support the problems like
religious fundamentalism, communal violence, terrorism, etc. About 90% of the students agree
with the caste politics that is happening in the society. As a result they want to separate politics
from religion.

After conducting this study among college students and carefully analyzing the data,
researchers have come to the conclusion that there is no major relation between religiosity and
the educational pursuit. In short, students believe in their own religion but the degree of
religiosity is less.

34
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
• The Relationship between Religiosity and educational pursuit and perception. RandyA.
Larose- Utah State University.

• Albrecht, S. L. (1989). The consequential dimension of Mormon religiosity. BYU ,

Studies,29,57-108

• Albrecht, S. L., & Bahr, H. M. (1983). Patterns of religious disaffiliation: A study of

lifelong Mormons, Mormon converts, and former Mormons. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 22, 366-79

• Albrecht, S. L., & Heaton, T. (1984). Secularization, higher education, and religiosity.

• Review of Religious Research, 26, 43-58.

• Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2002-2005). Spirituality in higher education. Los Angeles:

• University of California, Higher Education Research Institute.

• Beyerlein, K. K., & Smith, C. (2004). Impact of conservative Protestantism on the

perceived value of a college education. Journal for the Scientific Study of religion, 43(4),
505-518.

• An Analysis of Religious and Spiritual Beliefs and Behaviors in College Students, Allison C.
Culley, St. Catherine University.

35
 The Religiosity of Loyola College Students-A Sociological Study

Dear Respondent,

I am Komol Palma, a student of final year B.A. Sociology, doing a mini research on ‘The Religiosity of
Loyola College Students’ for the academic purpose. Please fill the questionnaire given below. We
ensure that the information provided by you will be kept confidential and used only for research
purpose.

Questionnaire

1. Name of the respondent……………………………

2. Age-:
a) 18-22
b) 22-26
3. Department:
a) Arts
b) Science
c) Commerce
4. Level of graduation:
a) UG
b) PG
5. Religion:
a) Christian
b) Hindu
c) Muslim
d) Other religion.
Objectives of the study:
A. To know the attitude of college students towards religion.
B. To examine the degree of religiosity among the college students.
C. To investigate the influence of religion towards college students.

Part – A

1. Which category of the following do you belong to?

a) Theist
b) Atheist
c) Agnostic
d) Don’t want to comment
2. Are you forced to believe in your own religion?

36
 a) Yes
b) No
c) Not applicable
3. If so, who forces you to follow religion?
a) Family
b) Neighbours
c) Friends
d) Religious community
e) Any other
f) Not applicable.
4. Does your religion have made any changes within you?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don’t know
d) Not applicable
5. If yes, what kind of changes have you experienced in your life?
a) Change in character
b) Change in attitude
c) Change in relationship
d) Change in thinking process
e) Not applicable
6. Does your religion help you to become an efficient member in society?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Not at all
d) Not applicable.
7. If yes, how does it affect you?
a) Character formation
b) Community bond
c) Helping people
d) Volunteering for humanitarian activities.
e) Not applicable
8. Do you think you can lead a life without religion?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Neutral
d) Not applicable
9. Do you think religion brings harmony in our society?
a) Yes
b) No
c) No idea
d) Not applicable.
10. If yes, in what way it helps to bring harmony?
a) Community service

37
 b) Understanding each other
c) Compassion to each other
d) Any other factors
e) Not applicable
Part B

11. Do you participate in your own religious rituals?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Not at all
d) Not applicable
12. How much time do you spend for your religious rituals (prayers) in a day?
a) Less than 30 minutes
b) 30-45 minutes
c) 1 hour
d) Not applicable

13. How often do you visit your own religious institutions (Temple, Church, Mosque, and Pagoda)?
a) Daily
b) Once a week.
c) Once in fifteen days
d) Once a month
e) Once a year
f) Any other (please specify)..................................................................
g) Not applicable
14. With whom do you like to visit those religious institutions?
a) Alone
b) Family
c) Friends
d) Others
e) Not applicable
15. Do you gain any satisfaction by visiting those religious institutions?
a) Yes.
b) No
c) Not applicable
16. If yes, what kind of satisfaction do you get?
a) Material satisfaction
b) Emotional satisfaction
c) Spiritual satisfaction
d) Mental satisfaction
e) Any other
f) Not applicable
17. Do you believe in religious sacrifices practiced by your own religion?
a) Yes

38
 b) No
c) Not at all
d) No idea
e) Not applicable.
18. What is your faith level?
a) Strong
b) Weak
c) Neutral
d) No idea
e) Not applicable.
PART C
19. What is your view on religious fundamentalism?
a) Good
b) Bad
c) No idea
d) Not applicable.
20. “Religious ideologies create communal violence.”
a) Strongly agree.
b) Agree
c) Disagree
d) Strongly disagree
e) No idea
f) Not applicable.
21. Do you agree that religion is affecting our Fundamental Rights?
a) Strongly agree.
b) Agree.
c) Disagree.
d) Strongly disagree
e) No idea
f) Not applicable
22. “Atheism is better than being a strong devotee in certain situations.”
a) Strongly agree.
b) Agree
c) No idea
d) Disagree
e) Strongly disagree
f) Not applicable
23. “Wrong interpretation of religious text creates confusion (terrorism) in society.”
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Disagree
d) Strongly disagree
e) No idea
f) Not applicable

39
24. Does religion affect your formal education?
a) Yes
b) No
c) No idea
d) Not applicable
25. Do you think that moral education should be imparted in educational curriculum?
a) Yes.
b) No
c) No idea
d) Not applicable
26. If so, in what way you can impart it in educational curriculum?
a) In the form of moral science subject
b) As an optional subject
c) Any other (please specify)................................................................................................
d) Not applicable.
27. Do you think religion is to be delinked from politics?
a) Yes
b) No
c) No idea
d) Not applicable.
28. What is your view on religious altruism?
a) Good
b) Bad
c) Meaningless
d) No idea
e) Not applicable
29. “Contemporary political parties use religion as an instrument for their vote bank”.
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Disagree
d) Strongly disagree
e) No idea
f) Not applicable.
30. “Present generation are least bothered about their own religion”.
a) Strongly agree
b) Agree
c) Disagree
d) Strongly disagree
e) No idea
f) Not applicable.

40