Abstract
Most of the current approaches to measuring religiosity operate with indicators of individual religiosity. One of the central ideas of the current paper is that religiosity is a social phenomenon. The Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS) developed by S. Huber is applied to measure the individual component of religiosity. A modification of the CRS (CRS-SOC) has been developed to include the social component of religiosity with two aspects: social connections with lay members of religious communities and with the clergy. The analysis is based on the data of two surveys conducted in Russia: an on-line survey with a general population sample (1768 respondents) and a survey of parishioners of four Christian denominations: Orthodox, Catholic, “traditional” Protestant (Lutheran, Baptist), and the “new” Protestant (Pentecostal) (1192 respondents). The structure of religiosity among parishioners of different Christian denominations is discussed. The results, which revealed that the level of religiosity among Orthodox parishioners is slightly lower, are interpreted using the theory of religious economy.
Highlights
There are so many different approaches to the definition of religion and religiosity (Pollack 2003, pp. 28–56) that some researchers propose to renounce universal definitions of these concepts due to their vagueness and inability to cover all the relevant phenomena (McKinnon 2002)
The analysis presented in this paper is based on the data of two surveys. Questionnaires of both surveys included the same block of questions according to modified version of the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS-SOC)
(0.85 for both the CRS-5 and the CRS-SOC6, 0.79 for the CRS-SOC7) which allows us to conclude that the reliability of both scales is good, with the CRS-SOC6 performing a little better than the CRS-SOC7
Summary
There are so many different approaches to the definition of religion and religiosity (Pollack 2003, pp. 28–56) that some researchers propose to renounce universal definitions of these concepts due to their vagueness and inability to cover all the relevant phenomena (McKinnon 2002). There are so many different approaches to the definition of religion and religiosity One of the approaches, which allows for the consideration of this complexity (at least to some extent), is the multidimensional approach to religiosity conceptualization and operationalization. This was proposed and actively developed by several scholars in the second half of the 20th century The most influential of these in the sociology of religion was the approach of Ch. Glock, who proposed studying five dimensions of religiosity: experiential, ritualistic, ideological, intellectual, and consequential (Glock 1962). Allport proposed to pay attention to how central religion is in one’s life, whether it is a master motive in one’s life (intrinsic religious orientation) or only a means for achieving other goals (extrinsic religious orientation) (Allport and Ross 1967)
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.
