Abstract
This study sought to establish the conceptual relationship between intrinsic religiosity and spirituality by evaluating their capacity to mediate one another. Analysis was done using a cross-sectional data provided by university students (N = 333) from the Limpopo Province, South Africa. SEM analysis was used to test two hypothesised mediation models: 1) in which intrinsic religiosity was hypothesized to influence health risk behaviours in paths mediated by spirituality (religious well-being and existential well-being), and 2) in which spirituality (religious well-being and existential wellbeing) was hypothesized to influence health risk behaviours in paths mediated by intrinsic religiosity. Intrinsic religiosity failed to mediate the association between health risk behaviours and spirituality, and spirituality also failed to mediate the association between intrinsic religiosity and health risk behaviours. Nevertheless, there were direct relations between the religiosity/spirituality variables and most of the health risk behaviours measured in this study. Results showed that intrinsic religiosity and spirituality dimensions are independent constructs in this particular sample, since they failed to mediate each other. Our results support the putative bifurcation of the two constructs in the literature and findings of distinct independent roles they have on health.
Highlights
Interest in the association of religiosity and spirituality with health risk behaviours is increasing, and most of the studies project a protective role of the variables (Nonnemaker, McNeely, & Blum, 2003; Yonker, Schnabelrauch, & DeHaan, 2012)
This study aims to clarify the commonalities between religiosity and spirituality, and their relationship to health risk behaviour, by using a mediational Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach
Intake of alcohol was not associated with existential well-being (EWB) (p > 0.05)
Summary
Interest in the association of religiosity and spirituality with health risk behaviours is increasing, and most of the studies project a protective role of the variables (Nonnemaker, McNeely, & Blum, 2003; Yonker, Schnabelrauch, & DeHaan, 2012). Both religiosity and spirituality are negatively associated with health risk behaviours such as engaging in early sex, having sex with multiple sexual partners (Gold et al, 2010; Miller & Gur, 2002; Rostosky, Wilcox, Comer Wright, & Randall, 2004; Zaleski & Schiaffino, 2000), and using addictive licit and illicit substances, including alcohol and nicotine (Chitwood, Weiss, & Leukefeld, 2008; Humphreys & Gifford, 2006; Marsiglia, Kulis, Nieri, & Parsai, 2005). Some issues are outstanding, chief amongst which are: (1) difficulties in conceptualizing and distinguishing between religiosity and spirituality, and (2) the actual effect of the concepts on risk-taking behaviour. The Theologia Viatorum 40-2-2016 concept has proven difficult to define (Moberg, 2002), spirituality is associated with an individualized, subjective experience, in some instance incorporating the idea of an existential relationship with God, a perceived transcendence or higher influence (Hill & Pargament, 2003; Hill et al, 2000; Hodge, 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
