Ethnic and Gender Variation in Religious Involvement: Patterns of Expression in Young Adulthood

Abstract

This study used latent class analysis to empirically derive profiles of religious involvement among a sample of 808 young adults and describe ethnic and gender differences within such religious involvement patterns. Items on the Duke Religion Index were included as part of a larger longitudinal survey of emotional, physical, and behavioral health. The scale measured the organizational, nonorganizational, and intrinsic dimensions of religiosity (Koenig et al. 2001) in a sample of young adults at two waves of the study—age 27 and age 30. At age 27, five religious profiles were distinguishable in the sample while at age 30 six profiles emerged. Ethnic differences were found for each of the religious profiles where religious involvement manifested in different ways. Religious profiles between ages 27 and 30 changed over time and were affected by gender and ethnicity.

A Person‐Centered Examination of Adolescent Religiosity Using Latent Class Analysis

“…Our Abiders seem very similar to their Devoted group, but we incorporate a higher percentage of youth in this class of religiosity, probably because the latent class model is identifying youth with a high probability of membership who are not necessarily a perfect fit to this ideal type that were identified by Smith and Denton () using a strict set of criteria. We also find similarities in the latent classes of religiosity derived from our analysis and the types of “fuzzy fidelity” identified by Storm () in Europe and latent classes derived by Jones et al () in their Seattle‐based sample.…”

“…Much like prior variable‐based approaches have established, we show that age, race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, parent education, and region of the country are related to the probabilities of falling into the five different classes of religiosity (Jones et al ). This suggests the continued importance of controlling for these factors when trying to understand any influence of religiosity (whether through a variable‐ or person‐centered approach) on other aspects of life.…”

Religiosität international vergleichen

“…An established procedure for measuring religiosity in and across societies is the utilization of a typological approach examining the nature of individual religiosity which is then cumulated on a society level (see for example Chaves 2010, Davie 1990, 1994Edlund 2013;Jones et al 2011;Pearce and Denton 2011;Stolz et al 2014;Voas 2009). This approach is based on the idea that religiosity is a multidimensional phenomenon characterized by multiple factors such as belief, emotional connection to God, spirituality, religious behavior, or institutional affiliation.…”

“…The three other groups are located between these extremes, each showing certain specific profiles of religiosity. Jones et al (2011) look at the impact of gender and ethnicity on religious profiles among young adults participating in two waves of an US-American longitudinal survey. Next to the obligatory extreme groups of generally low and generally high religiosity, on the basis of the included items they differentiate between a personal experiential group, a personal ritual group, an involved group and a spiritual-not-religious group.…”

Religious Pathways from Adolescence to Adulthood

“…Recent work has offered suggestions for empirically examining religiosity as a multidimensional construct (Jones et al. ; Storm ). Taking a person‐centered approach to examine religiosity among adolescents, Pearce and Denton () provide one example of modeling the multidimensionality of religious beliefs, salience, and practice using latent class analysis (LCA).…”