The fact that religious feelings were the best predictor of interdependence also allows us to speculate that this type of interdependence is more a feeling of connection with a “greater being” or “humanity” rather than with particular other people. Some quotes about religion and spirituality emphasize this aspect: Bible: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.” New-Age spirituality: developing a spiritual feeling involves “emphasizing that part... of the common reality which is unique to us, and through that we are seeing the... fundamental part which is behind it” (Bloch, 1998). Perhaps religion plays a special role in the West, allowing people to retain their independence while also offering the opportunity to have the comforting “at one” feeling of interdependence? Does Religion allow Americans to develop both the independent and interdependent self-construals equally? These quotes seem to allow for both the interdependent and independent self-construal to develop equally, as our sample reflected. Introduction : Religiosity and Interdependent Self-Construal Interdependence in an Individualistic Culture Emma E. Buchtel University of British Columbia 116 Yale undergraduate students filled out questionnaires in the library. 1. Demographics (including importance of religion) 2. Religiosity (Actions, Feelings, Ways of Relating, Thoughts) (Fiorito and Ryan, 1998, August) 3. Self-Construal (Singelis, revision of 1994) 4. Communal Orientation (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, and Milberg, 1987) References This research was supported by a Mellon Senior Thesis Research Fellowship Methodology : 4 questionnaires Summary This research investigated the effect of Religiosity on Interdependent and Independent self-construal. Subjects were 116 Yale students (mean age = 20.03, 50.08% female) who filled out a four-part questionnaire: a demographics sheet, a Religious Means questionnaire (Fiorito and Ryan, 1998, August), a Self-Construal Scale (Singelis 1994), and a Communal Orientation scale (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, and Milberg, 1987). Results showed that 1) religiosity is significantly positively correlated with Interdependent Self-Construal (Religious Feelings being the most important predictor) and has no correlation with Independent Self-Construal; and 2) religiosity is a better predictor of Interdependent Self- Construal than Communal Orientation. Findings suggest that religiosity is related in an important way to self-construal. Results : Results cont’d : Implications: Independent / Interdependent self-construal: The Independent self-construal is encouraged in cultures high in Individualism You feel you have stable traits and preferences that do not change over time, situation, or depending on people around you You should feel unique and autonomous Sibling Co-worker Friend Mother Father X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Self X X X X X X X X Sibling Co-worker Friend Mother Father X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Self X X X X X X X X The Interdependent self-construal is encouraged in cultures high in Collectivism You feel that your salient traits and preferences depend on the context and who is around you You should feel connected with others Religiosity and Self-Construal: Why would they be connected? Correlations Gender * 2 Religiosity--. 46** * 3 Interdependent Self-Construal ** 4 Independent Self-Construal--.20* 5 Communal Orientation-- Gender scored as Male=1, Female=2 *p<.05, **p<.0001 (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) 4 possible connections: Religious people often strongly identify with their religious group; 1) Identification with a group  higher interdependence? They also usually attend religious meetings, where they make friends 2) Attendance at meetings  stronger social networks  higher interdependence? …and are often encouraged by religion to do good for others 3) Stronger orientation to help others  higher interdependence? Finally, being religious is often described as a feeling of being a part of a greater purpose or greater “spirit” 4) Something special to do with “feeling of religiosity”  higher interdependence? Religiosity was highly positively correlated (r =.46, p <.0001) with Interdependent Self-Construal, but not at all correlated with Independent Self-Construal (r=.04). To test Connection 1: identification with a group led to higher interdependence, those who claimed a religious affiliation were compared with those who did not (50% Christian (23% Catholic); 11% Jewish; vs. 22% Atheist/Agnostic). This Affiliation variable also correlated highly with Interdependence (r =.225, p =.005). However, when adjusted for religiosity, the independent predictive power of Affliation dropped to non-significance (pr =.045). Similarly, when testing Connection 2: frequency of attendance at meetings leading to interdependence, it was found that attendance was highly correlated with Interdependence (r =.331, p =.0003), but when adjusted for religiosity the relationship was nonsignificant (pr = -0.03) Connection 4, that something particular about the feeling of religiosity was linked with higher interdependence, was best supported by the data. The four sub-measures of religiosity were highly intercorrelated (ranging from r =.75 to r =.92), but a multiple regression analysis showed that religious feelings (e.g. “confident in God’s existence,” feeling a “connection with all humanity,” feeling “enhanced by religion,” feeling “content with life and relationships” ) were the best independent predictor of Interdependent self-construal. Self-Construal scores split at mean religiosity score: To test Connection 3, we did not directly measure helpfulness to others, but used Clark’s Communal Orientation scale, which measures feelings such as being responsible for others’ welfare and feeling obligated to fulfill needs of others. Communal Orientation did correlate highly with Interdependence (r =.35, p <.0001) but it also correlated with all other major variables, including Independent Self-Construal. It seems, therefore, to be qualitatively different from Interdependent Self-Construal. Markus, H. and S. Kitayama (1991). “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review 98: