2011 3 - 2 Religious Commitment, Skepticism, and Struggle Among U.S

28/8/2015
ReligiousCommitment,Skepticism,andStruggleAmongU.S.CollegeStudents:TheImpactofMajority/MinorityReligiousAffiliationandInstitution
Log in / Register
Go to old article view
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Volume 50, Issue 1
March 2011
Pages 154174
Religious Commitment, Skepticism, and Struggle Among U.S.

College Students: The Impact of Majority/Minority Religious
Affiliation and Institutional Type
Jenny L. Small, Nicholas A. Bowman
First published:
2 March 2011 Full publication history
DOI:
10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01557.x
Cited by:
7 articles
Refresh
View/save citation
Citing literature
Correspondence should be addressed to Nicholas A. Bowman, Center for Social Concerns, 164
Geddes Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: nbowman@nd.edu
Abstract
Using a longitudinal sample of over 14,000 undergraduate students, this study explores whether
and how students religious transformations during the college years are associated with their
religious affiliation, religious experiences, and the institutional characteristics of their college or
university. Hierarchical linear modeling reveals that students from religious majority groups (i.e.,
mainline and evangelical Protestants) generally experience increased religious commitment and
decreased religious skepticism as compared with students from religious minority groups.
Interestingly, though, students from these majority groups also report greater levels of religious
struggle compared to minority group students. Moreover, institutional religious affiliation and an
inclusive campus religious climate often attenuate the relationship between students religious
affiliation and their religious transformation. Environments at both the macro (campus) and micro
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.14685906.2010.01557.x/?campaign=wlytk42222.3926388889
1/30
28/8/2015
(friendship groups) levels contribute critically to young adults religious commitment.
Provide feedback or get help
INTRODUCTION
The impact of college experiences on young adults religious beliefs, practices, and selfidentification constitutes a growing topic of interest in the field of religious research. College
serves as a particularly important context for young adults to consider questions of faith and
purpose (e.g., Parks 2000 ). Recent debates have focused on whether college students exhibit
substantial declines in their religious participation ( Bryant, Choi, and Yasuno 2003 ;
Saenz and Barrera 2007 ) or whether college serves as a time for students to reevaluate and
reformulate their religious beliefs and perceptions ( Mayrl and Oeur 2009 ;
Pascarella and Terenzini 2005 ). Another possibility is that students place their religious
identities into a lockbox ( Clydesdale 2007 ), not thinking about or addressing that element of
their lives until the conclusion of college. Although a growing number of studies exist on this
topic, much of the research is methodologically flawed, so it is often difficult to draw definitive
conclusions ( Mayrl and Oeur 2009 ). Furthermore, despite an ongoing call from within higher
education for more research on students from marginalized religious groups ( Clark 2003 ;
Collins, Hurst, and Jacobson 1987 ; Love 2002 ;
Markstrom-Adams, Hofstra, and Dougher 1994 ), very little attention has been paid to how
religious transformation during the college years may differ among students from diverse
religious backgrounds.
The current study explores whether and how religious minority status and college experiences
are related to changes in religious beliefs and struggles at both secular and religiously affiliated
institutions. The study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it utilizes measures
such as religious struggle and ecumenism, which have been refined beyond indicators of
religious behavior and spiritual expression in previous research. This moves research beyond
external behaviors to a greater understanding of students internal motivators. Second, it
examines outcomes at multiple points in time, which reduces reliance on students self-reports
of change. Although self-reported gains during college are often used to indicate change in
religiosity and other outcomes, these measures are substantially flawed (
Bowman and Hill in press ; Hall et al. 1998 ; Pascarella 2001 ) and are inadequate proxies
for longitudinal methods ( Bowman 2010a, 2010b ). Third, the analyses contrast religious
outcomes of young adults from majority and minority religious denominations, while exploring
whether and how these patterns differ by institutional religious affiliation. The present study
makes these contributions using a three-year longitudinal sample of 14,527 undergraduate
students from 136 colleges and universities in the United States.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This research is situated within Stark's (1996) theories on the relationship between religiosity
and social context. When examining the impact of religion upon delinquent behavior, Stark
2/30
28/8/2015
found that religion encourages conformity within a group only when the majority of the group
members validate that religion as the accepted motivation for behavior. According to
Hill (2009) , this moral communities thesis explains that religion works when the
community upholds the religious justifications for conforming to certain behavioral norms
(2009:517). Colleges and universities in which religious behaviors are highly integrated into the
social environment will legitimate religious practice for students ( Hill 2009 ). For example,
Roberts and colleagues ( Roberts, Koch, and Johnson 2001 ) found that both religious and
secular students with religious friends become more religiously active in college than do
students with nonreligious friends. Burdette and her colleagues ( Burdette et al. 2009 )
determined that normative behavior surrounding hooking up was impacted by institutional
religious affiliation, with students at Catholic schools most likely to engage in this behavior. The
authors surmised several reasons for this, including institutional facilitation of social events
designed to help students find romantic partners. We build upon these applications of the moral
communities thesis in higher education to examine the impact of alignment and divergence of
institutional and student religious affiliation, particularly as pertaining to religious minorities.
Literature Review
About 20 years ago, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reported that most research conveyed a
decline in college students religious beliefs and behaviors. The near-consensus of that time has
received further support from two recent national studies. In a survey of 3,680 students, firstyear college students were shown to become less likely to attend religious services, to pray or
meditate, and to discuss religion while in college ( Bryant, Choi, and Yasuno 2003 ). In a survey
of over 30,000 students, seniors reported becoming less religious relative to their peers since
starting college ( Saenz and Barrera 2007 ).
However, other work has questioned or qualified such claims. Clydesdale (2007) argues that
students place their religions into an identity lockbox, returning to their religious practices only
after leaving college. Although it may appear that students religious involvement has
diminished, researchers must be aware that students do continue to self-identify religiously. In
addition, a large cross-sectional study utilized students self-reports of change since the
beginning of college and found that students report, on average, slight increases in commitment
to religious values during the college years ( Graham and Cockriel 1997 ). When examining a
sample of over 4,000 students, Lee (2002) also found that students were more likely to report
a strengthening of their religious convictions during college than to report a weakening.
Moreover, an intriguing study compared changes in religiosity among young adults who did and
did not attend college ( Uecker, Regnerus, and Vaaler 2007 ). Decreases in religiosity, as
indicated by disaffiliation with a religious organization, diminished service attendance, and
reduced importance placed on religion, were greatest among young adults who had not
attended any college. Thus, even though religious commitments may decline during college, it
seems that attending college might actually reduce this overall rate of decline.
Refined Measures of Religiosity

Some research has begun to take a nuanced approach to studying college students religious
beliefs and practices ( Hartley 2004a ; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005 ). For example, a
comparative case study of four colleges and universities found a large number of students
exploring denominational boundaries, developing an openness to religious diversity, and making
3/30
28/8/2015
use of a strong supply of religious and spiritual programs from which students could choose (
Cherry, DeBerg, and Porterfield 2001 ). Furthermore, a national survey found that college
graduates were much more likely than noncollege graduates to allow for the truth claims of
other religions ( Wuthnow 2007 ), leading the author to conclude that students may view
religions as interchangeable cultural traditions. Another recent review of the literature finds that
students are interested in being somewhat religiously involved during their college years, but not
at a deep level ( Mayrl and Oeur 2009 ).
We extend these lines of research by featuring an examination of the perceptions and struggles
that undergird the religious behaviors of college students. The outcomes measured include
elements that may explain why young adults believe what they do, such as that religion is
personally helpful or that the students feel loved by God. The outcomes also may explain
causes of struggle and skepticism, such as feeling angry or distant with God and never having
felt a sense of sacredness, respectively. Research that emphasizes these types of psychological
motivations can offer deeper understandings of the motivations for and meaning of student
behaviors.
Institutional Religious Affiliation

Of course, a simple association between institutional religious affiliation and religious
commitment, for example, does not necessarily suggest that institutional type is related to
changes in religious commitment. Numerous studies have found that, compared with students
attending secular schools, students attending religiously affiliated institutions have stronger
religious beliefs and practices, along with greater gains in religiosity. According to a review of the
literature, students at conservative Protestant schools are the most religiously active and
committed ( Hartley 2004b ). According to a large-scale study that grouped into six religious
and secular types ( Gonyea and Kuh 2006 ), students enrolled in religiously-affiliated schools
(especially those considered fundamentalist) were more likely to engage frequently in
spirituality enhancing activities (described by the authors to include worship, meditation, and
prayer) and to have greater self-reported deepened sense of spirituality. The authors surmised
that this may partially be due to the types of students attracted to attending this type of school.
According to Hill (2009) , students at conservative Protestant colleges are socialized to attend
religious services, whereas this is often not the case at Catholic, other Protestant, or secular
colleges. In fact, he found that the participation rate of Catholic students at Catholic colleges is
no higher than their participation rate at secular colleges. However, students belonging to small
religious subcultures may flourish in their religious identification through association with likeminded students on campuses with religiously diverse student populations.
Clydesdale (2007) concurs that evangelical colleges have the strongest record of promoting
religiosity among their students, in part because they attract students who are already
committed to remaining religiously active during the college years. Bryant et al. (2003)
observed similar benefits for involvement in religious activities among students attending
Protestant institutions. Additional longitudinal research demonstrated that students at nonCatholic religious institutions had greater gains in spiritual identification and increases in
eudaimonic well-being (living one's life to the fullest) than those at secular schools (
Bowman and Small 2010 , in press). Students at Adventist Christian colleges scored higher
than students at secular colleges on measures of commitment to the church, personal religious
commitment, agreement with life-style standards, and a grace orientation ( Dudley 1999 ).
4/30
28/8/2015
Finally, Lee (2002) noted that students at institutions with high average levels of religious
service attendance tended to have greater self-reported increases in their religious beliefs.
Differences between institutional religious affiliations are also reflected in student behaviors that
are not explicitly religious. In a recent study examining sexual behaviors, Freitas (2008) found
that students at evangelical institutions of higher education utilized the teachings of their faith to
make decisions about their sexual behaviors. The Catholic and secular colleges in the study did
not display what Freitas called a religious campus culture, and the sexual behaviors of students
at these two campus types were indistinguishable, even accounting for alignment with the
students religious affiliation. The behaviors of religious minority students (i.e., non-Christian)
were not examined separately, so it is unclear how such students fared at these institutions.
Therefore, based on this previous research on college student religiosity, we proposed the
following hypothesis:
(H1) Students who attend Protestant institutions will generally have increased religious
commitment and decreased religious skepticism and struggle relative to students who attend
secular institutions. However, no significant differences will be observed between secular and
Catholic institutions.
Previous studies examining faculty support of student religious and spiritual exploration
demonstrate that faculty endorsement of religious practice and exploration may intensify the
ecological impact of a college campus. According to a major study on college student religion
and spirituality conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), 39 percent of
students reported that their beliefs have been strengthened by ideas encountered in the
classroom, compared with 53 percent reporting no change ( HERI 2006 ). Analyses of another
longitudinal HERI dataset are consistent with these perceived influences; specifically, faculty
support for spiritual/religious development is positively related to students religious
engagement ( Bowman and Small 2009 ) and increases in spiritual identification (
Bowman and Small 2010 ). This led us to propose a second hypothesis:
(H2) Having college experiences pertaining to religion and religious similarity will be associated
with increased religious commitment and decreased religious skepticism and struggle.
Majority and Minority Religious Denominations

The relationship between college students religious affiliations and their religious
transformation has received minimal research attention. This topic is critical because students
from religious minority groups receive relatively less support on campus ( Nash 2003 ;
Sax 2002 ; Speck 1997 ), and they may be on the negative receiving end of Christian privilege (
Seifert 2007 ; Watt, Fairchild, and Goodman 2009 ). We define students from religious
minority groups as those who identify with a non-Christian religion (e.g., Islam, Buddhism) or
with no religious affiliation at all. While religious majority students may feel fully comfortable in
continuing to express themselves religiously during the college years, religious minority students
may feel discouraged in such practices by the lack of support and attention from administrators
and faculty.
As one might expect, many differences in the beliefs and practices of students from different
religions and denominations are apparent ( HERI 2005 ). For example, Unitarians, Jews, and
students with no religious affiliation score highly on a measure of religious skepticism, whereas
Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, and other Christians score much lower. However,
5/30
28/8/2015
these findings do not illustrate whether or how students beliefs and practices change during
college. Bowman and Small (2010) found that religious minority students have smaller gains
in spiritual identification than mainline and born-again Christian students, and these differences
are particularly pronounced at religiously-affiliated schools. Hill (2009) determined that
evangelical students have decreased religious participation at Catholic colleges, while Catholic
students have increased participation at conservative Protestant institutions, lending credence
to the idea that both institutional and student affiliation contribute to these outcomes (although
Hill did not examine the religious engagement of non-Christians). In our previous research (
Bowman and Small 2010 , in press), we found that students from marginalized religious
groups tended to have smaller gains in spirituality and well-being than students from majority
groups, particularly on religiously-affiliated campuses. Therefore, we proposed the following
hypothesis:
(H3) Relative to mainline Protestants, students who are affiliated with a non-Christian religious
group (or not affiliated with any religious group) will have diminished religious commitment and
increased religious skepticism and struggle. Furthermore, these effects will be more pronounced at
religiously-affiliated schools than at secular schools.
We expected that this predicted link between religious affiliation and student outcomes would
be driven, in part, by a lack of acceptance and support for religious minority groups (see
Bowman and Small 2010 , in press; Schlosser 2003 ; Seifert 2007 ) and a contrast with
environmental norms ( Stark 1996 ). This interpretation leads to the final hypothesis:
(H4) The effects of religious affiliation on religious change will be attenuated at institutions whose
students, on average, strongly endorse an ecumenical worldview (i.e., an interest, acceptance, and
appreciation of diverse religious traditions).
We believe the concept of ecumenical worldview will expand upon the idea of the de facto
pluralism described by Hill (2009) ; in other words, the pluralism of campus cultures that host
a wide variety of religious groups enables students to have an interest in, acceptance of, and
appreciation for religious diversity.
METHODS
Data
Data from the Spirituality in Higher Education Project, which was conducted by the HERI and
sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, were used for this study (for detailed methodological
information, see Astin, Astin, and Lindholm in press ; HERI 2010 ). Colleges and universities
that regularly participate in the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman
Survey, a self-selected pool of over 1,900 institutions, were invited to take part in this project. In
the fall of 2004, an expanded version of the CIRP Freshman Survey was administered to 112,232
entering first-year students. These paper-and-pencil surveys were typically completed during
summer orientation programs before the beginning of the first year or during the beginning of
the fall semester. Along with the regular CIRP items, this survey contained numerous items
regarding students attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors pertaining to religion and spirituality. In the
spring of 2007, a subset of the original sample was invited to complete a follow-up survey, and
these students received questionnaires in the mail. A total of 36,703 students were eligible for
6/30
28/8/2015
the second wave of data collection. Of these, 14,527 participants from 136 institutions
responded to the follow-up survey, which yielded a response rate of 40 percent; this rate is
similar to that of other multi-institutional surveys of college students (e.g., see Hurtado 2004 ).
We only included participants who responded to the item on religious affiliation (or lack thereof)
in the final sample. In addition, because the religious change of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) often
differs substantially from that of other young adults ( Smith 2009 ) and because this group does
not fit easily into any of the religious classifications discussed below, LDS students were removed
from the sample, along with the one institution that had a substantial majority of LDS students.
Therefore, the final sample in this study included 14,102 students from 135 institutions.
Compared with national averages, religiously-affiliated institutions were overrepresented in this
dataset: 41 schools were secular (13 public, 28 private), 34 were Catholic, and 60 were
Protestant. This sampling is ideal for the purposes of the current study, as the research
questions include differences in religious outcomes at secular and religiously affiliated
campuses.
A weighting algorithm was employed to make the data more representative of all first-year
students and institutions. A three-stage weighting process was used. A regression-based
approach is used in Stage 1 to estimate the findings that would have been obtained if all
students had completed the questionnaire. Weights were applied using demographic and other
entering freshman data available on all students who had been mailed questionnaires. In Stage
2, these initial weights were adjusted to make the data representative of all entering freshmen at
the participating sample of institutions. Finally, using the CIRP institutional stratification scheme,
Stage 2 weights were adjusted to make the data representative of incoming first-year college
students at all four-year colleges and universities. These Stage 3 weights were then normalized
(i.e., they were divided by a constant to yield a mean of one) so that applying the weights would
not change the total sample size.
Measures
Dependent Variables
To convey the multifaceted nature of religiosity, we examined three distinct college student
1
outcomes: religious commitment, religious skepticism, and religious struggle. Religious

commitment was gauged with a 12-item scale (Cronbach's alpha = .97); these items included
placing importance on seeking to follow religious teachings in my everyday life, finding religion
to be personally helpful, and a belief that one's spiritual/religious beliefs give meaning/purpose
to my life. Religious skepticism measured the degree to which participants doubt the existence of
God or a higher power (= .86). These nine items included a belief that the universe arose by
chance and not believing in life after death. Religious struggle reflected the degree to which
participants felt conflicted or unsure about their religious beliefs. Sample items from this sevenitem index (= .77) include the frequency or extent to which students felt unsettled about
spiritual and religious matters,struggled to understand evil, suffering, and death, and
questioned [their] religious beliefs. Because the items that comprised religious commitment
and religious skepticism used different response scales, the overall indices for each construct
were computed using the sum, not the average, of the relevant items (
Astin, Astin, and Lindholm in press ). The dependent variables were then standardized with a
mean of zero and a standard deviation of one so that the unstandardized coefficients can be
interpreted in terms of effect sizes ( Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken 2003 ). For example, a
7/30
28/8/2015
coefficient of .20 means a one-unit change in the independent variable corresponds with a .20
standard deviation increase in the religious outcome, controlling for all other predictor variables.
Independent Variables
A slightly modified version of the RELTRAD coding scheme ( Steensland et al. 2000 ) was used
to classify students religious affiliations upon entering college. None of the response options in
the dataset indicated affiliation with a black Protestant denomination, so participants were
classified into one of the remaining RELTRAD categories: mainline Protestant, evangelical
Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, other religion, or no religious affiliation. Some of our research (
Bowman and Small 2009, 2010 , in press) has examined the impact of belonging to a minority
religious group in American society, which we had defined as all non-Christian religions and
denominations that are generally considered to be on the margins of mainstream Christianity
(e.g., Eastern Orthodox, LDS). Based upon theoretical considerations and preliminary analyses of
the data, Eastern Orthodox and Quaker students were included with the other religion group,
whereas Seventh-Day Adventists were included with the mainline Protestant group. The
nonaffiliated, while not technically religious minorities, make up just under a fifth of college
students today ( HERI 2005 ), rendering them minority status relative to the much larger group
of mainstream Christians. Catholic students, who are well-represented numerically on college
campuses ( HERI 2005 ), constituted their own category. Mainline Protestants served as the
referent group so that the differences between this group and multiple religious minority groups
(i.e., Jews, students from other religions, and nonreligiously-affiliated students) could be
examined. In addition, institutional religious affiliation was gauged with a dummy-coded variable
representing Catholic schools and a second dummy variable representing Protestant schools;
secular schools served as the institutional referent group.
Several college experiences and perceptions related to religion and spirituality were used.
Ecumenical worldview (= .72) described students interest in and connection to diverse religious
traditions. These 12 items include believing in the goodness of all people and perceiving that
love is at the root of all great religions. Two indices were created based on entering levels of
ecumenical worldview: one that characterized each student's views and a second that
represented the average of all students who completed the first-year questionnaire at her/his
institution. The institutional average was considered a proxy for an inclusive campus religious
climate; however, this openness to religious diversity among students may or may not reflect
institutional support for religious inclusivity. By including both of these indices, the unique
effects of individual perceptions and campus climate can be examined.
Three college experiences from the 2007 survey were also used. First, students interactions with
people who held similar religious beliefs were gauged with a two-item index; these items were
the frequency of time spent with people who share your religious views and the number of
close friends who share your religious/spiritual views. Second, faculty support of students
spiritual/religious development was assessed with a five-item index (= .82). These items gauged
the extent to which faculty encouraged exploration of questions of meaning and
purpose,encouraged discussion of religious/spiritual matters, and acted as spiritual role
models for you. Third, religious engagement represented the degree to which students were
involved in religious activities. This nine-item index (= .88) included items regarding the
frequency with which students attended a religious service, read sacred texts, and engaged in
prayer/meditation.
8/30
28/8/2015
Control variables included gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age (1 = 16 or younger, to 10 = 55 or

older), and parental education (mean of mother's and father's education; 1 = grammar school or
less, to 8 = graduate degree). Because high school grade point average (HSGPA) was strongly
skewed, dummy-coded variables were created for students who reported a B average (B to
B+) and a C average or less (C+ or lower); students with an A average (A to A+) served as the
referent group. Several dichotomous variables were also used to indicate race/ethnicity: African
American/black; American Indian/Alaska Native; Asian American/Asian and Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (a combination of two categories from the CIRP survey), Mexican
American/Chicano, Puerto Rican, and other Latino (combination of three CIRP categories); and
other. White/Caucasian served as the referent group. Pretest or initial values of religious
commitment (= .96), religious skepticism (= .83), and religious struggle (= .75) were also used
(see Appendix A for descriptive statistics). The continuous independent variables were then
standardized with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one for inclusion in the analyses.
Because the independent and dependent variables were both standardized, unstandardized
coefficients for continuous variables are analogous to standardized coefficients, so the
magnitude of effects can be compared across these variables.
Plan of Analysis
Because the current sample contained students nested within institutions and because some of
the primary research questions dealt with the relationship between institutional and individual
characteristics, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses were used to predict religious
change. The nesting of students within institutions violates a key assumption of ordinary least
squares multiple regression; HLM accounts for this issue by partitioning the variance within
groups (i.e., at Level 1) and between groups (i.e., at Level 2) and adjusting standard errors
accordingly ( Raudenbush and Bryk 2002 ). Moreover, HLM can be used to determine whether
the effect of a Level-1 variable (e.g., students religious affiliation) differs significantly across
institutional contexts.
Three HLM models were examined for each religiosity outcome. Block 1 examined the main
effects of individual- and institutional-level predictors of religious change: independent variables
included gender, age, race/ethnicity, parental education, HSGPA, the initial value of the
dependent variable, students religious affiliation, and ecumenical worldview at Level 1, while
institutional religious affiliation and ecumenical worldview average were modeled at Level 2.
Block 2 examined whether the relationships between students religious affiliation and religious
change were moderated by institutional characteristics; therefore, this model contained the
same independent variables as Level 1 and allowed the slopes for students religious affiliations
to vary. Moreover, the Level-2 variables of Catholic institution, Protestant institution, and
ecumenical worldview average were added as predictors of the slopes for the student religious
affiliation variables. Finally, Block 3 added several additional predictors at Level 1 that may
mediate the link between religious affiliation and religious change; these include student
interactions with people who share their religious beliefs, faculty support for spiritual/religious
development, and students religious engagement. In all models, continuous variables were
grand-mean centered, and dichotomous variables were uncentered. We chose not to center the
dichotomous variables so that the intercept would represent religious growth or struggle for the
referent groups (e.g., mainline Protestants), and the base coefficients of Level-1 predictors in the
slopes-as-outcomes models would represent the effects at secular institutions (i.e., the Level-2
9/30
28/8/2015
referent group; see Raudenbush and Bryk 2002 ).

Preliminary analyses showed that a nontrivial proportion of variance in the dependent variables
occurred between colleges and universities. The interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for
religious commitment, religious skepticism, and religious struggle were 13.7 percent, 15.0
percent, and 3.4 percent, respectively. Although the ICC for religious struggle was somewhat low,
the nesting of students within institutions violates a key assumption of multiple regression (
Cohen et al. 2003 ), and HLM accounts for this nonindependence of observations.
Furthermore, two major texts do not provide any ICC cutoff value for the use of HLM (
Luke 2004 ; Raudenbush and Bryk 2002 ), and this ICC is reasonably close to the 5 percent
suggested by Heck and Thomas (2009) . Moreover, multilevel analyses are necessary when
examining individual and institutional predictors in the same model ( Thomas and Heck 2001 ),
and the use of the same statistical technique for all three dependent variables also permits
meaningful comparisons of results across the religious outcomes. For these reasons, HLM was
used for all analyses.
RESULTS
Religious Commitment
In Block 1 of the HLM analyses, students who attend a Protestant institution have greater gains
in religious commitment than those who attend a secular institution whereas no such difference
exists between students attending Catholic and secular schools (see Table 1). At the individual
level, relative to mainline Protestants, evangelical Protestants have greater gains in religious
commitment, whereas nonreligiously-affiliated students have smaller gains. These same
patterns persist when the slopes for students religious affiliations are allowed to vary in Block 2.
In addition, attending a Catholic school becomes a significant predictor in Block 2; because the
slopes were allowed to vary, this means that mainline Protestants (i.e., the referent group for
religious affiliation) have greater increases in religious commitment at Catholic institutions than
at secular institutions. Furthermore, the effects associated with evangelical Protestants and
nonreligiously-affiliated students are significantly weaker at institutions with a high ecumenical
worldview average, and the effect associated with evangelical Protestants is also weaker at
Catholic schools than at secular schools.
Table1. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses predicting religious

commitment in the junior year
Predictor Variables
Catholic school
Protestant school
Ecumenical worldview average
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
.084
.131**
.131***
(.044)
(.046)
(.034)
.141**
.143***
.065*
(.047)
(.034)
(.027)
.026
.037
.043
10/30
28/8/2015
(.028)
(.024)
(.024)
Evangelical Student
Intercept
.142*
.111*
.090*
(.060)
(.049)
(.040)
.280*
.183
(.107)
(.096)
.067
.120*
(.085)
(.046)
.055*
.095**
(.024)
(.027)
Catholic Student
Intercept
.001
.003
.048
(.029)
(.037)
(.028)
.025
.120**
(.057)
(.044)
.053
.018
(.050)
(.049)
.022
.005
(.021)
(.020)
.167
.043
.027
(.089)
(.108)
(.046)
.490
.259
(.257)
(.171)
.295
.099
(.267)
(.123)
.014
.039
Catholic school
Protestant school
Catholic school
Protestant school
Jewish Student
Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
11/30
28/8/2015
(.078)
(.047)
.040
.066
.012
(.069)
(.083)
(.058)
.031
.076
(.119)
(.088)
.011
.086
(.102)
(.082)
.041
.026
(.048)
(.030)
.241***
.254***
.131***
(.043)
(.059)
(.032)
.042
.106
(.114)
(.077)
.087
.140*
(.089)
(.056)
.050*
.036*
(.022)
(.015)
.049***
(.011)
.016
(.008)
.525***
(.022)
Student from Other Religious Affiliation

Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
Nonreligiously-Affiliated Student
Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
Socialized with students with similar religious beliefs
Faculty support for spiritual/religious development
Religious engagement
Note : Analyses controlled for gender, age, race/ethnicity, parental education, high school GPA, students
ecumenical worldview, and religious commitment at the beginning of freshman year; * p < .05; ** p < .01;
*** p < .001.
12/30
28/8/2015
In Block 3, all of the same significant effects from Block 2 are present, except that attending a
Protestant school is now negatively related to religious commitment and attending a Catholic
institution no longer significantly predicts the slope for evangelical students. Religious
engagement is a strong, positive predictor of gains in religious commitment, and a fairly weak,
positive relationship exists for socializing with students who hold similar religious beliefs. Several
other moderators of students religious affiliation are significant in Block 3: the effects associated
with being an evangelical Protestant or nonreligiously-affiliated student (relative to a mainline
Protestant) are weaker at Protestant institutions than at secular schools, and the effect of being
a Catholic student on religious commitment is actually more negative at Catholic schools than at
secular schools. Because these predictors of slopes are not present in Block 2, these can be
described as suppressor effects, in which the effect of a particular predictor variable is increased
when including another predictor in the model ( Cohen et al. 2003 ; Pedhazur 1997 ).
Because suppressor effects are driven by the interrelationships between multiple independent
variables, it is often difficult to determine the exact substantive meaning (if any) of these
coefficients ( Pedhazur 1997 ).
Religious Skepticism
Some of the predictors of religious skepticism are similar to those for religious commitment;
however, as one might expect, the patterns are in the opposite direction (see Table 2). In Block 1,
students attending Protestant schools have smaller gains in religious skepticism than those at
secular schools, and nonreligiously-affiliated students have much larger gains in religious
skepticism than mainline Protestant students. However, unlike the models predicting religious
commitment, evangelical Protestants do not differ from mainline Protestants in religious
skepticism, and students from Catholic, Jewish, and other non-Christian faiths have greater gains
in skepticism than mainline Protestants. All of these patterns persisted in Block 2. Once again,
attending an institution with a high ecumenical worldview average and attending a Protestant
school both attenuate the link between religious affiliation (in particular, identifying as Catholic
or with no religious group) and religious skepticism in Block 2. In Block 3, students religious
engagement and socializing with peers who have similar religious views are negatively related to
gains in religious skepticism, whereas faculty support for spiritual/religious engagement is
positively related to religious skepticism. The main effect of Protestant institutions becomes
nonsignificant, while a suppressor effect for attending a Catholic school appears in this final
block. The effects of students religious affiliations are generally smaller in Block 3 than in Block
2, but they still remain significant (except for the difference between Catholics and mainline
Protestants).
Table2. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses predicting religious

skepticism in the junior year
Predictor Variables
Catholic school
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
.037
.046
.134**
(.051)
(.057)
(.043)
13/30
28/8/2015
Protestant school
.171**
.116**
.016
(.062)
(.038)
(.033)
.016
.056
.053
(.049)
(.038)
(.032)
.065
.069
.063
(.039)
(.048)
(.042)
.044
.004
(.084)
(.079)
.070
.011
(.082)
(.068)
.067
.011
(.040)
(.044)
.086**
.085*
.023
(.029)
(.033)
(.027)
.034
.082
(.056)
(.048)
.123*
.101*
(.051)
(.047)
.057*
.048**
(.022)
(.015)
.427***
.388**
.213**
(.096)
(.120)
(.077)
.333
.371*
(.210)
(.153)
Evangelical Student
Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
Catholic Student
Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
Jewish Student
Intercept
Catholic school
14/30
28/8/2015
Protestant school
.168
.031
(.224)
(.148)
.123
.052
(.077)
(.061)
.236***
.224***
.126**
(.060)
(.059)
(.039)
.083
.117
(.119)
(.089)
.040
.018
(.102)
(.090)
.079
.093
(.060)
(.053)
.567***
.529***
.268***
(.088)
(.083)
(.057)
.014
.095
(.122)
(.092)
.144
.087
(.074)
(.062)
.155***
.149***
(.020)
(.024)
.043**
(.013)
.114***
(.025)
.447***

Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
15/30
28/8/2015
(.011)
ecumenical worldview, and religious skepticism at the beginning of freshman year. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p
< .001.
To examine whether students religious engagement is responsible for the link between
Protestant institutions and religious transformation, additional analyses (not shown here) were
conducted. The models were identical to Block 1 analyses predicting religious commitment and
religious skepticism, but with religious engagement as an additional Level-1 predictor. If adding
this lone variable eliminates the significant pattern for Protestant institutions, then this variable
mediates the relationship between institutional type and religious change. As expected, adding
religious engagement to Block 1 results in either a nonsignificant effect (for religious skepticism)
or a reversal of the observed effect (for religious commitment).
Religious Struggle
Interestingly, some of the significant main effects for religious struggle are similar toand in the
same direction asthose for religious commitment. In Block 1, attending a Protestant institution
(vs. attending a secular institution) is associated with greater gains in religious struggle (see
Table 3). Evangelical Protestants have greater gains in religious struggle than mainline
Protestants, whereas the opposite pattern occurs for Jewish students, students who identify with
other non-Christian groups, and nonreligiously-affiliated students. In addition, attending an
institution with a greater ecumenical worldview average is positively associated with religious
struggle. With the exception of the pattern for evangelical Protestants, all of these significant
findings also occur in Block 2. Attending a Protestant school diminishes differences between
mainline Protestants and several groups: other non-Christian religions, Catholics, and
evangelical Protestants (although the main effects in the latter two categories are not significant
in Block 2). Relative to attending a secular school, attending a Catholic school exacerbates the
differences in religious struggle between Jews and mainline Protestants. As with the previous
two dependent variables, ecumenical worldview average conditions the relationship between
being an evangelical Protestant and religious change. In Block 3, the only college experience that
significantly predicts gains in religious struggle is faculty support for spiritual/religious
engagement, which has a positive relationship. The main effects for students religious affiliation
and ecumenical worldview average are similar in Blocks 2 and 3, although two of the predictors
of slopes become nonsignificant in the final block. As with religious skepticism, attending a
Catholic school becomes a negative predictor in Block 3, and attending a Protestant school
becomes nonsignificant.
Table3. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses predicting religious struggle

in the junior year
Predictor Variables
Catholic school
Block 1
.068
Block 2
.058
Block 3
.180**
16/30
28/8/2015
Protestant school
(.048)
(.063)
(.058)
.162***
.210***
.015
(.042)
(.051)
(.059)
.075***
.111***
.083**
(.017)
(.025)
(.023)
.133*
.056
.041
(.060)
(.053)
(.052)
.072
.028
(.112)
(.116)
.220*
.227*
(.093)
(.091)
.185*
.175*
(.082)
(.087)
.020
.021
.007
(.056)
(.058)
(.054)
.041
.019
(.081)
(.080)
.154*
.073
(.070)
(.067)
.009
.006
(.055)
(.054)
.341**
.358**
.411**
(.099)
(.130)
(.123)
.473*
.419
Evangelical Student
Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
Catholic Student
Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
Jewish Student
Intercept
Catholic school
17/30
28/8/2015
Protestant school
(.202)
(.238)
.322
.259
(.281)
(.276)
.007
.009
(.151)
(.138)
.182**
.196**
.209***
(.050)
(.057)
(.054)
.026
.058
(.112)
(.106)
.177*
.164*
(.084)
(.076)
.012
.003
(.025)
(.023)
.228**
.182*
.206*
(.074)
(.085)
(.078)
.024
.069
(.154)
(.149)
.102
.052
(.141)
(.135)
.054
.056
(.038)
(.038)
.022
(.019)
.174***
(.023)

Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
Intercept
Catholic school
Protestant school
18/30
28/8/2015
.008
(.022)
ecumenical worldview, and religious struggle at the beginning of freshman year. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p <
.001.
DISCUSSION
The patterns for religious commitment and religious skepticism are quite similar for most
predictors, so we will largely discuss these religion constructs simultaneously. Consistent with
Hypothesis 1, attending a Protestant institution is associated with greater gains in religiosity than
attending a secular institution. Yet for the most part, religious change does not differ significantly
between Catholic and secular institutions. Two dynamics may account for the divergence
between these two types of religiously-affiliated schools. First, the institutional effects may
simply be the product of overall differences in students religious engagement. Students at
Protestant schools are much more religiously engaged than students at Catholic schools,
whereas no such difference exists between Catholic and secular institutions (
Bowman and Small 2009 ; Hill 2009 ). Moreover, adding college experience variables in Block
3 completely accounts for the differences between secular schools and Protestant schools. In a
related explanation, some argue that a focus on secular goals at many Catholic institutions has
detracted from religious development and moral values at these schools (e.g., Reilly 2003 ).
Hill (2009) suggests that at Catholic colleges, religious identity is in question or is no longer as
salient as it once was (2009:530), and Freitas (2008) states that religion at these schools is
nonintrusive and private (2008:55). Thus, a generalized secularism (relatively speaking) at
Catholic schools may also partially account for these effects.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2, religious engagement is strongly associated with increased
religious commitment and decreased religious skepticism. This pattern implies a type of virtuous
cycle in which religious activities, such as attending services and reading holy texts, encourage
students to build their internal commitment, and their internal commitment then drives them to
greater participation. Moreover, even when controlling for religious engagement and faculty
support for spiritual/religious development, socializing with students who have similar religious
beliefs is related to greater religious commitment and diminished skepticism. It seems that these
interpersonal bonds play an important role in maintaining and fostering religiosity, as students
may engage in informal conversations about their shared religious beliefs or formal religious
activities. In contrast, when controlling for other variables, faculty support for spiritual/religious
engagement is linked to increased religious skepticism. Follow-up analyses (not reported here)
reveal that this pattern is not a suppressor effect that results from including other variables in
the model. It may be that students who are questioning their religious beliefs are more likely to
seek out religious and spiritual guidance from faculty members, which then leads to a
perception of greater faculty support for religious and spiritual development. The corresponding
positive relationship between faculty support for spiritual/religious development and gains in
19/30
28/8/2015
religious struggle provides some indirect support for this interpretation. Alternatively, it may be
engagement with religion from an academic perspective, as catalyzed by faculty members, which
may cause students to rethink their own more tacitly held beliefs, resulting in increased
skepticism.
Evangelical Protestant students generally have the greatest increases in religious commitment,
whereas nonreligiously affiliated students tend to have the least. These patterns may be
explained by group differences in religious and spiritual engagement. For instance,
Bowman and Small (2010) found that differences in spiritual growth among religious groups
were completely explained by students religious experiences and ecumenical worldview during
college. In the current study, the effects associated with evangelical Protestants and a lack of
affiliation with an organized religion are reducedbut generally not eliminatedwhen
controlling for these same experiences. This pattern suggests even beyond engagement,
students social networks may legitimate their religious commitment, which is consistent with
Hill's (2009) understanding of the impact of one's network in the formation of religious
behavioral norms.
Consistent with Hypothesis 3, Jews and students from other religious affiliations have greater
gains in religious skepticism than mainline Protestants. Although these students are somewhat
less religiously engaged during college than their mainline Protestant peers (
Bowman and Small 2009 ), controlling for religious engagement and other religious
experiences does not completely account for this group difference in religious skepticism. When
considering Hill's (2009) moral community theory, this finding suggests that the peers of these
Jewish and other religious students may harbor a normative ideology of religious skepticism. It
may also imply that religious skepticism is linked not only with a lack of participation in or
commitment to one's religion, but also with the status of being a religious minority. Members of
religious minority groups often experience the privileging of Christianity ( Schlosser 2003 ) and
therefore may perceive a contradiction inherent within the existence of multiple religious
ideologies (minimally, their own and that of Christians). This may lead to doubts about religious
truth being reflected through increased religious skepticism during college, an environment that
may expose young adults to religious perspectives that they did not encounter in their home
communities. Interestingly, Catholic students also demonstrate increased skepticism relative to
mainline Protestants, although Catholicism is the single largest denomination represented on
college campuses today ( HERI 2005 ). This also may indicate an ideological conflict between the
Catholic and Protestant worldviews.
The effects of being an evangelical Protestant or nonreligiously-affiliated student were
diminished at schools with a greater ecumenical worldview average, which is consistent with
Hypothesis 4. Ecumenical worldview measured at an institutional level may serve as a proxy for
an inclusive campus religious climate ( Bowman and Small in press ). Students who do not fall
neatly into any existing religious group may feel more welcome to practice their beliefs at
colleges and universities with a climate supportive of religious diversity, which would explain
why the effect of not identifying with an organized religion is tempered at these institutions.
Moreover, this inclusive climate seems to reduce the gains of evangelical Protestants. Because
evangelical students often feel that only their particular beliefs are the only possible religious
truth ( Magolda and Gross 2009 ), these students hegemonic viewsand thus their
commitment to their beliefsmay be challenged in environments that accept and promote
religious diversity.
20/30
28/8/2015
Attending a Protestant institution often has a similar attenuating effect on the link between
religious affiliation and religious change. This pattern is somewhat surprising because one might
expect that Christian institutions would exacerbate any gaps between Christian and nonChristian students. However, the constant presence of religious topics in the curriculum and cocurriculum at many of these institutions provides all students with ample means for
constructively examining their religious beliefs ( Freitas 2008 ). This is consistent with the moral
communities explanation provided by Hill (2009) , albeit expanded to include non-Christian
students as those being impacted by the authority of those communities.
The overall findings for religious struggle are also largely unexpected. The same groups of
students and institutions that have greater religious growth also have greater gains in religious
struggle. As Bryant and Astin (2008) have described, the literature on whether religious
struggle is good or bad is mixed, with a majority of studies (including their own) finding that it
is generally related to negative outcomes (e.g., increased psychological distress and diminished
physical health and self-esteem). The current finding cannot simply be explained by differing
levels of religiosity across groups because religious struggle is virtually uncorrelated with
religious engagement, religious commitment, and religious skepticism (Astin, Astin, and Lindhom
in press). There are two possible explanations for these findings on religious struggle. The first
possibility is that students must be engaged with religious thoughts in order to experience
religious struggle. In other words, those students who are heavily participating in religious
activities and conversing with like-minded religiously committed peers are regularly presented
with a variety of new ideas, some of which may challenge their existing beliefs. This is consistent
with the findings of Freitas (2008) , in which students at evangelical colleges had more
opportunities to test their faith. Conversely, students who have lower levels of religious
engagement, such as those who do not identify with any organized religion, have less reason to
think about religion in general and, therefore, to struggle with religion's meanings and nuances.
Alternatively, theoretical perspectives on college diversity experiences may provide some insight
into the current relationships pertaining to religious struggle. Gurin et al. (2002) argue that
students often have limited experience interacting with racial/ethnic diversity before entering
college. When they attend college campuses that are generally much more diverse than their
previous neighborhoods and high schools, these initial interactions can lead to an internal
struggle to reconcile one's current experiences with one's previously held worldviews and
conceptions. That is, these diversity interactions often lead to a questioning or a reconsideration
of one's beliefs ( Bowman and Brandenberger in press ; Luo and Jamieson-Drake 2009 ),
which often ultimately results in attitude change (e.g., Denson 2009 ; Hurtado 2005 ).
An analogous dynamic may occur on college campuses. Many evangelical and mainline
Protestants, as well as Catholics, are probably used to being in the substantial majority and
practicing their religious beliefs with like-minded individuals. Attending college campuses that
celebrate multiple forms of diversity (including religious) may be quite novel and potentially
threatening for these students. In fact, some evangelical Protestant students create close-knit
communities to protect themselves from the broader campus community that does not share
their strongly-held beliefs ( Magolda and Gross 2009 ). Therefore, this confrontation with
diverse religious beliefs may lead to greater religious struggle. In contrast, many non-Christian
students are likely used to being in the minority; as a result, attending a campus that is mostly
comprised of Christian students is not a novel experience and therefore does not contribute to
religious struggle. This interpretation is bolstered by the positive relationship between an
21/30
28/8/2015
institution's ecumenical worldview average and gains in religious struggle. In other words,
encountering a campus climate that supports and celebrates religious diversity may lead to
greater religious struggle (particularly among Christian students), which is consistent with this
dissonance-related explanation.
Finally, some limitations should be noted. Previous studies have identified the impact of
attending fundamentalist or conservative Protestant institutions as opposed to other
Christian institutions ( Freitas 2008 ; Gonyea and Kuh 2006 ), but the dataset did not contain
sufficient information to make this delineation. Therefore, the current analyses may be
underestimating the impact of attending these subtypes of Protestant colleges and universities.
In addition, the survey response options used to indicate students religious affiliations did not
include a category that indicated a black Protestant group, which is one of the RELTRAD
classifications for religious affiliation ( Steensland et al. 2000 ). Moreover, the ecumenical
worldview average is an indirect proxy for an inclusive campus religious climate; a measure that
asked specifically about openness to religious diversity on one's campus would be a more direct
(and potentially more accurate) indicator of this construct.
CONCLUSION
The research presented here offers new insights into the ways religiously diverse college
students change their religious commitment and experience skepticism and struggle. It
illustrates the ways in which environments at both the macro (campus) and micro (friendship
groups) levels contribute critically to young adults religious commitment. For example, the
normative presence of religious engagement among evangelical Protestant students seems to
encourage religious commitment, whereas the pseudo-secular culture of Catholic institutions
does not have much impact. Moreover, religious commitment, religious engagement, and having
friends with similar religious beliefs all build upon and contribute to one another. Identifying
with a non-Christian religious group (or no religious affiliation at all) also plays a role, as these
students awareness of Christian privilege leads to greater skepticism toward religion as well as
less struggle to reconcile their own beliefs with those of others.
Two findings from this study also provide critical extensions of previous religious research. First,
the relationship between faculty support for religious development and increased religious
skepticism suggests a possible confluence with Clydesdale's (2007 ) theory of the identity
lockbox. In other words, students who temporarily push their active religious involvement aside
may also find themselves with more opportunity to entertain thoughts of skepticism. Future
research should consider the question of whether this skepticism is a lasting condition or
whether it wanes after a change in environment and a distancing from these faculty influences.
Second, Hill's (2009) work on moral communities and religious subcultures is supported by
this study's findings regarding the positive influence of like-minded peers on religious
transformation. Hill's fundamental question concerns how institutional characteristics influence
individual-level participation, and his question may be partially answered by this mediating
presence of the friendship groupthe membership of which is externally limited by the
enrollment of students at a particular institution.
Additionally, future research should continue to explore the religious transformation of diverse
college students at diverse institutions and to utilize the two identified key institution-level
22/30
28/8/2015
predictors of religious growth: religious affiliation and campus religious climate. Furthermore, it
would be interesting to examine how the religious beliefs of faculty at an institution (as reported
by faculty themselves) might be related to the growth of religiously diverse students. As noted
earlier, the findings regarding faculty support in the current study may be more indicative of
individual students struggle or questioning than the characteristics of the relevant faculty
members. This study also observed intriguing effects of an institution-level proxy for campus
religious climate. By asking students about their individual perceptions of religious climate, the
observed effects of climate may be even more pronounced.
Footnotes
1
Items and factor loadings are found in Appendix S1, which can be accessed online at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.
Acknowledgments :
The authors thank UCLA's Spirituality in Higher Education Project and its directors, Alexander W.
Astin, Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholm, for providing the data for this study. The UCLA
project, which is housed at UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute, is supported by a grant
from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
Appendix
APPENDIX A
Descriptive statistics for all variables
Mean
SD
Minimum
Maximum
Female
.554
.497
Age
3.399
.744
10
African American/black
.054
.225
American Indian/Alaska Native
.021
.144
Asian/Pacific Islander
.094
.291
Latino/Chicano
.065
.247
Other race/ethnicity
.038
.191
Parental education
5.323
1.684
C average high school GPA
.041
.199
23/30
28/8/2015
B average high school GPA
.389
.488
Mainline Protestant student
.308
.462
Evangelical Protestant student
.142
.349
Catholic student
.286
.453
Jewish student
.020
.138
Other religious student
.068
.252
Nonreligiously-affiliated student
.174
.379
Interactions with others who hold similar religious views
.004
.831
-1.97
1.77
Faculty support of spiritual/religious development
1.631
.472
19.607
7.849
7.14
43
Ecumenical worldview (institutional)
31.804
1.397
29.08
40.63
Ecumenical worldview (individual)
31.915
4.814
12
45
2004 religious commitment
31.458
10.263
12
47
2004 religious skepticism
17.738
5.310
33
2004 religious struggle
11.651
2.903
21
2007 religious commitment
31.253
10.207
11.59
47.74
2007 religious skepticism
17.818
5.547
8.26
33.65
2007 religious struggle
11.727
3.018
5.86
21
Note : Statistics are based on weighted values. All continuous variables were subsequently standardized with a
mean of zero and a standard deviation of one for inclusion in the analyses.
Supporting Information
Appendix S1. Items, factor loadings, and internal reliabilities for all dependent variables.
Filename
JSSR_1557_sm_AppendixS1.doc
46K
Supporting info item
24/30
28/8/2015
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information
supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding
author for the article.
REFERENCES
Astin, Alexander W., Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholm In press. Assessing students spiritual
and religious qualities. Journal of College Student Development.
Bowman, Nicholas A. 2010a. Assessing learning and development among diverse college students.
In Diversity and educational benefits , edited by SergeHerzog, pp. 5371. San Francisco , CA : JosseyBass.
Web of Science Times Cited: 1
Bowman, Nicholas A.. 2010b. Can 1st-year college students accurately report their learning and
development American Educational Research Journal 47(2):46696.
CrossRef | Web of Science Times Cited: 1
Bowman, Nicholas A. and Jay W. Brandenberger. In press. Experiencing the unexpected: Toward a
model of college diversity experiences and attitude change. Review of Higher Education.
Bowman, Nicholas A. and Patrick L. Hill. In press. Measuring how college affects students: Social
desirability and other potential biases in self-reported gains. In Validity and limitations of college
student self-report data , edited by SergeHerzog and Nicholas A.Bowman. San Francisco : Jossey
Bass.
Bowman, Nicholas A. and Jenny L. Small. 2009. College experiences, well-being, and spiritual
development of religiously privileged and religiously marginalized college students . Los Angeles , CA :
Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.
Bowman, Nicholas A. and Jenny L. Small. 2010. Do college students who identify with a privileged
religion experience greater spiritual development? Exploring individual and institutional dynamics.
Research in Higher Education 51(7):595614.
CrossRef | Web of Science
Bowman, Nicholas A. and Jenny L. Small. In press. Exploring a hidden form of minority status:
College students religious affiliation and well-being. Journal of College Student Development.
Bryant, Alyssa N. and Helen S. Astin. 2008. The correlates of spiritual struggle during the college
years. Journal of Higher Education 79(1):127.
Bryant, Alyssa N., Jeung Yun Choi, and Maiko Yasuno. 2003. Understanding the religious and
spiritual dimensions of students lives in the first year of college. Journal of College Student
Development 44(6):72346.
Burdette, Amy M., Christopher G. Ellison, Terrence D. Hill, and Norvald D. Glenn. 2009. Hooking
up at college: Does religion make a difference Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
48(3):53551.
25/30
28/8/2015
Wiley Online Library | Web of Science Times Cited: 2

Cherry, Conrad, Betty A. DeBerg, and Amanda Porterfield. 2001. Religion on campus . Chapel Hill ,
NC : University of North Carolina Press.
Clark, Christine. 2003. Diversity initiatives in higher education: A case study of multicultural
organizational development through the lens of religion, spirituality, faith, and secular inclusion.
Multicultural Education 10(3):4854.
Clydesdale, Tim. 2007. The first year out: Understanding American teens after high school . Chicago ,
IL : University of Chicago Press.
CrossRef
Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West, and Leona S. Aiken. 2003. Applied multiple
regression correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 3rd ed. Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Collins, James R., James C. Hurst, and Judith K. Jacobson. 1987. The blind spot extended:
Spirituality. Journal of College Student Personnel 28(3):27476.
Denson, Nida. 2009. Do curricular and cocurricular diversity activities influence racial bias? A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research 79(2):80538.
Dudley, Roger L. 1999. Understanding the spiritual development and the faith experience of
college and university students on Christian campuses. Journal of Research on Christian Education
8(1):528.
CrossRef
Freitas, Donna. 2008. Sex and the soul: Juggling sexuality, spirituality, romance, and religion on
America's college campuses . New York : Oxford University Press.
Gonyea, Robert M. and George D. Kuh. 2006. Independent colleges and student engagement: Do
religious affiliation and institutional type matter? A special report for the council of independent
colleges . Bloomington , IN : Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University.
Graham, Steve and Irv Cockriel. 1997. A factor structure for social and personal development
outcomes in college. NASPA Journal 34(3):199216.
CrossRef
Gurin, Patricia, Eric L. Dey, Sylvia Hurtado, and Gerald Gurin. 2002. Diversity and higher education:
Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review 72(3):33067.
Hall, Todd W., Beth Fletcher Brokaw, Keith J. Edwards, and Patricia L. Pike. 1998. An empirical
exploration of psychoanalysis and religion: Spiritual maturity and object relations development.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37(2):30313.
26/30
28/8/2015
Hartley, Harold V. 2004a. How college affects students' religious faith and practice: A review of
research. College Student Affairs Journal 23(2):11129.
Hartley, Harold V.. 2004b. The religious engagement of first-year students at Protestant colleges.
Paper presented at Institute on College Student Values, February, Tallahassee , FL .
Heck, Ronald H. and Scott L. Thomas 2009. An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques , 2nd
ed. New York : Routledge.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). 2005. The spiritual life of college students: A national
study of college students search for meaning and purpose . Los Angeles , CA : University of California,
Higher Education Research Institute.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). 2006. Spirituality and the professoriate: A national study
of faculty beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors . Los Angeles , CA : University of California, Higher
Education Research Institute.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). 2010. Appendix A: College Student Beliefs and Values
(CSBV) Survey methodology . Los Angeles , CA : University of California , Los Angeles , Higher
Education Research Institute.
Hill, Jonathan P. 2009. Higher education as moral community: Institutional influences on religious
participation during college. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(3):51534.
Wiley Online Library | Web of Science
Hurtado, Sylvia. 2004. Preparing college students for a diverse democracy: Final report to the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Field Initiated Studies
Program . Ann Arbor , MI : Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University
of Michigan.
Hurtado, Sylvia. 2005. The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal
of Social Issues 61(3):595610.
Lee, Jenny J. 2002. Religion and college attendance: Change among students. Review of Higher
Education 25(4):36984.
Love, Patrick. 2002. Comparing spiritual development and cognitive development. Journal of
College Student Development 43(3):35773.
Luke, Douglas A. 2004. Multilevel modeling . Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage.
Luo, Jiali and David Jamieson-Drake. 2009. A retrospective assessment of the educational benefits
of interaction across racial boundaries. Journal of College Student Development 50(1):6786.
Magolda, Peter M. and Kelsey Ebben Gross. 2009. It's all about Jesus! Faith as an oppositional
subculture . Sterling , VA : Stylus.
27/30
28/8/2015
Markstrom-Adams, Carol, Greta Hofstra, and Kirk Dougher. 1994. The ego-virtue of fidelity: A case
for the study of religion and identity formation in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence
23(4):45369.
Mayrl, Damon and Freeden Oeur. 2009. Religion and higher education: Current knowledge and
directions for future research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(2):26075.
Wiley Online Library | Web of Science
Nash, Robert J. 2003. Inviting atheists to the table: A modest proposal for higher education.
Religion and Education 30(1):123.
CrossRef
Parks, Sharon Daloz. 2000. Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for
meaning, purpose and faith . San Francisco , CA : Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, Ernest T. 2001. Using student self-reported gains to estimate college impact: A
cautionary tale. Journal of College Student Development 42(5):48892.
Pascarella, Ernest T. and Patrick T. Terenzini, editors. 1991. How college affects students: Findings
and insights from twenty years of research . San Francisco , CA : Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, Ernest T. and Patrick T. Terenzini. 2005. How college affects students, volume 2: A third
decade of research . San Francisco , CA : Jossey-Bass.
Pedhazur, Elazar J. 1997. Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction , 3rd
ed. New York : Wadsworth.
Raudenbush, Stephen W. and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods , 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage.
Reilly, Patrick J. 2003. Are Catholic colleges leading students astray? A nationwide survey raises
concerns about the impact that American colleges have on the faith and morals of Catholic
students. Catholic World Report: March.
Roberts, Alden E., Jerome R. Koch, and D. Paul Johnson 2001. Religious reference groups and the
persistence of normative behavior: An empirical test. Sociological Spectrum 21(1):8198.
Saenz, Victor B. and Douglas S. Barrera. 2007. Findings from the 2005 College Student Survey (CSS):
National aggregates . Los Angeles , CA : Higher Education Research Institute.
Sax, Linda. 2002. America's Jewish freshmen: Current characteristics and recent trends among students
entering college . Los Angeles : University of California, Higher Education Research Institution.
Schlosser, Lewis Z. 2003. Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development 31(1):4451.
28/30
28/8/2015
Seifert, Tricia. 2007. Understanding Christian privilege: Managing the tensions of spiritual plurality.
About Campus 12(2):107.
Wiley Online Library
Smith, Christian with Patricia Snell. 2009. Souls in transition: The religious & spiritual lives of
emerging young adults . New York : Oxford University Press.
CrossRef
Speck, Bruce W. 1997. Respect for religious differences: The case of Muslim students. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning 70(Summer):3946.
Stark, Rodney. 1996. Religion as context: Hellfire and delinquency one more time. Sociology of
Religion 57(2):16373.
Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and
Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the
art. Social Forces 79(1):291318.
Thomas, Scott L. and Ronald H. Heck. 2001. Analysis of large-scale secondary data in higher
education research: Potential perils associated with complex sampling designs. Research in Higher
Education 42(5):51740.
Uecker, Jeremy E., Mark D. Regnerus, and Margaret L. Vaaler. 2007. Losing my religion: The social
sources of religious decline in early adulthood. Social Forces 85(4):166792.
Watt, Sherry K., Ellen E. Fairchild, and Kathleen M. Goodman, editors. 2009. Intersections of
religious privilege: Difficult dialogues and student affairs practice . San Francisco , CA : Wiley.
Wuthnow, Robert. 2007. Can faith be more than a side show in the contemporary academy? Essay
Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates . Available at
http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/, accessed July 18, 2007.
Citing Literature
Number of times cited: 7
Nicholas A. Bowman, Alyssa N. Rockenbach, Matthew J. Mayhew, Campus

Religious/Worldview Climate, Institutional Religious Affiliation, and Student Engagement,
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 2015, 52, 1, 24
CrossRef
29/30
28/8/2015
Phil Davignon, Robert A. Thomson, Christian Colleges and Universities as Moral Communities:
The Effects of Institutional Characteristics on Student Religiosity, Review of Religious Research,
2015
CrossRef
B. T. Gurrentz, "A Brotherhood of Believers": Religious Identity and Boundary-Work in a

Christian Fraternity, Sociology of Religion, 2014, 75, 1, 113
CrossRef
Nicholas A. Bowman, Nida Denson, A Missing Piece of the Departure Puzzle: Student
Institution Fit and Intent to Persist, Research in Higher Education, 2014, 55, 2, 123
CrossRef
Tom VanHeuvelen, The Religious Context of Welfare Attitudes, Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 2014, 53, 2, 268
Nicholas A. Bowman, Cynthia Toms Smedley, The forgotten minority: examining religious
affiliation and university satisfaction, Higher Education, 2013, 65, 6, 745
CrossRef
Patty LeBlanc, Patty Slaughter, Growing Thinking Christians: An Investigation of the Outcomes
of Christian Education, Journal of School Choice, 2012, 6, 1, 62
CrossRef
Browse Publications
Go To
Browse by Subject
Resources
Help & Support
Cookies & Privacy
Terms & Conditions
About Us
Wiley Job Network
Advertisers & Agents
Powered by Wiley Online Library Copyright 1999 - 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved
30/30

2011 3 - 2 Religious Commitment, Skepticism, and Struggle Among U.S

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2011 3 - 2 Religious Commitment, Skepticism, and Struggle Among U.S

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

28/8/2015

Go to old article view

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Religious Commitment, Skepticism, and Struggle Among U.S.

(friendship groups) levels contribute critically to young adults religious commitment.

Provide feedback or get help

Refined Measures of Religiosity

Institutional Religious Affiliation

Majority and Minority Religious Denominations

outcomes: religious commitment, religious skepticism, and religious struggle. Religious

Control variables included gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age (1 = 16 or younger, to 10 = 55 or

referent group; see Raudenbush and Bryk 2002 ).

Table1. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses predicting religious

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Student from Other Religious Affiliation

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Socialized with students with similar religious beliefs

Faculty support for spiritual/religious development

Table2. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses predicting religious

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Student from Other Religious Affiliation

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Socialized with students with similar religious beliefs

Faculty support for spiritual/religious development

Table3. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses predicting religious struggle

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Student from Other Religious Affiliation

Ecumenical worldview average

Ecumenical worldview average

Socialized with students with similar religious beliefs

Faculty support for spiritual/religious development

Descriptive statistics for all variables

American Indian/Alaska Native

C average high school GPA

B average high school GPA

Mainline Protestant student

Evangelical Protestant student

Other religious student

Interactions with others who hold similar religious views

Faculty support of spiritual/religious development

Ecumenical worldview (institutional)

Ecumenical worldview (individual)

2004 religious commitment

2004 religious skepticism

2004 religious struggle

2007 religious commitment

2007 religious skepticism

2007 religious struggle

Wiley Online Library | Web of Science Times Cited: 2

Nicholas A. Bowman, Alyssa N. Rockenbach, Matthew J. Mayhew, Campus

B. T. Gurrentz, "A Brotherhood of Believers": Religious Identity and Boundary-Work in a

Potrebbero piacerti anche