No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Conflicting or Compatible: Beliefs About Religion and Science Among Emerging Adults in the United States1
Abstract
A wide-held assumption is that increased religiousness is associated with stronger perceptions of a conflict between religion and science. This article examines this assumption using four distinct questions asked on the third wave of the National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR). Results indicate a variety of viewpoints for constructing the relationship between science and religion, rather than a simple conflict-compatibility continuum. Further, findings suggest that increased religiousness among emerging adults is associated with a stronger agreement in science and religion’s compatibility, rather than conflict. Incorporating New Age or non-Western spiritual tradition and a strict adherence to fundamentalist Christian doctrine are associated with complex configurations of beliefs on the relationship between religion and science. Collectively, the findings among emerging adults contradict traditional assumptions about how religious experiences influence beliefs, suggesting that such social factors may influence beliefs and attitudes uniquely at different points in the lifecourse or across generations. More broadly, the findings speak to the ongoing debate about the extent to which differing social experiences may produce consistent or discordant sets of beliefs and values, and in turn how particular configurations may impact strategies of action across a range of life domains.
... However, subgroup differences further revealed that the "conflict" view was much more common among the least religious, with 76% of nonreligious participants endorsing the "conflict" view compared with 16% of religious participants (Funk & Alper, 2015). Similarly, the National Study of Youth and Religion found that 70% of U.S. participants supported the "conflict" view, with religious skepticism and religious fundamentalism strongly predicting this support (Longest & Smith, 2011). However, the Baylor Religion Survey, conducted by the Gallup Organization, presented a different perspective, with only 17% of U.S. participants agreeing that science and religion are in conflict (Baker, 2012). ...
... For example, one study conducted in 38 countries, featuring participants from 10 of the world's major religions, suggests that the correlation between religiosity and the endorsement of the "conflict" view varies considerably across countries, with its metacorrelation nearly approaching zero (−.11 ≤ r ≤ −.05; Jackson et al., 2020a, Study 2). Another line of research suggests that only specific facets of religiosity, such as religious fundamentalism (Lee, 2022;Longest & Smith, 2011) or belonging to fundamentalist religious groups (Evans, 2013(Evans, , 2018Noy & O'Brien, 2016;O'Brien & Noy, 2018), are associated with supporting the "conflict" view. This body of literature has sparked a debate over the directionality of the relationship between religiosity and the endorsement of the "conflict" view. ...
... science) identities are prone to politicization (Mehta et al., 2021), potentially leading to exclusionary ideologies, such as religious fundamentalism (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004;Brandt & Reyna, 2010) or scientism (i.e., a strong belief in the superiority of science over any other modes of insight; Francis et al., 2019a;de Ridder et al., 2018;Haack, 2012). Extensive research has indicated that religious fundamentalism (Evans, 2013(Evans, , 2013Lee, 2022;Longest & Smith, 2011;Noy & O'Brien, 2016;O'Brien & Noy, 2018) as well as scientism (Astley & Francis, 2010;Francis et al., 2019a) predict perceptions of a conflict between science and religion. Moreover, these ideologies may be intertwined with other closely related ideologies, such as conservatism (Baker et al., 2020;Lee, 2022;Longest & Smith, 2011;Stankov & Lee, 2018) and secularism (Beauchamp & Rios, 2020;Simpson & Rios, 2019;Ståhl, 2021), further fueling perceptions of conflict between science and religion. ...
Science and religion are influential social forces, and their interplay has been subject to many public and scholarly debates. The present article addresses how people mentally conceptualize the relationship between science and religion and how these conceptualizations can be systematized. To that end, we provide a comprehensive, integrative review of the pertinent literature. Moreover, we discuss how cognitive (in particular, epistemic beliefs) and motivational factors (in particular, epistemic needs, identity, and moral beliefs), as well as personality and contextual factors (e.g., rearing practices and cross-cultural exposure), are related to these mental conceptualizations. And finally, we provide a flowchart detailing the psychological processes leading to these mental conceptualizations. A comprehensive understanding of how individuals perceive the science–religion relationship is interesting in and of itself and practically relevant for managing societal challenges, such as science denial.
... Education is one context with the potential to promote the conflict narrative or deconstruct it. Longest and Smith (2011) since participants felt that their faith was strengthened by understanding science. This may be an indication that being exposed to both religious and scientific curricula may cause students to see the disciplines as more compatible, especially if they are taught to be integrated with one another. ...
... Our data supports previous findings that those with a science identity viewed science and religion as more in conflict with one another, and that those with high religious identities found science and religion as more compatible (Scheitle, 2011;Longest & Smith, 2011;Sharp and Leicht, 2020;Leicht et al., 2021). However, our data was inconsistent with the finding in Leicht et al. (2021), which states that those who identified with religion saw more compatibility only if they also identified with science. ...
... However, it was also found that scientists and engineers are the most likely to hold the pro-science conflict perspective, future educators are among the most likely to hold a pro-religion conflict perspective, and 10 students in the Arts and Humanities were the most likely to hold an independence/collaboration view. This is consistent withLongest & Smith (2011) andLeicht et al. (2021) in that those with a more scientific identity hold a more conflicting narrative. This suggests that education in certain domains (i.e., non-science) may be more effective at highlighting compatibility between science and religion. ...
Science and religion sometimes appear to clash; for example, some religious organizations reject COVID-19 restrictions on religious grounds. However, many people, like millions of religious scientists, see science and religion as perfectly compatible. The purpose of this study is to examine how people who identify as religious and people who identify as scientists think about science and religion as either compatible or in conflict. The study was conducted with psychology and honors undergraduate students at the University of Maine and consisted of surveys asking about students’ religious and science commitment, as well as their perceptions of the science-religion relationship. We hypothesized and found that UMaine students higher in religious commitment saw science and religion as more compatible, whereas people higher in commitment to science saw science and religion as more in conflict. We also investigated differences between Honors and Non-Honors students, finding that students in the UMaine Honors program were more likely to both have a stronger science identity and see science and religion as more in conflict as compared to the Non-Honors group, which saw them as more compatible.
... A second measure was translated from Longest and Smith (2011), with originally four items using the same scale as the first measurement. Reliability increased greatly after excluding one item (α = .28 ...
... The second measurement (Longest and Smith 2011) is about the compatibility between science and religion, as previously described. Here, some participants indicated not understanding items (maximum three participants per item), and for each item, these participants were removed from analyses not to inflate the means because this option was coded "6". ...
... Descriptive statistics and prediction (by religious belief, religious practice and exposure to science) of Measure 2(Longest and Smith 2011) ...
This paper examines the relationship between science and religion in the education system of Roman-Catholic Portuguese society. In particular, we explored perceptions of the relationship between science and religion for religious education teachers. We surveyed 198 Portuguese religious education teachers about how they view science and religion. The questionnaires’ results revealed a number of similarities: religious education teachers are highly involved in religious practices and exposed to science; they perceived a compatibility between science and religion; and they have an openness to dialogue between both. They do not adhere to anti-scientific perspectives, but they simultaneously try to limit what can be explained by science. Thus, an interpretative view of dialogue and/or integration seems to best explain the perceptions of religious education teachers of the relationship between science and religion. These findings allow a space of discussion, enabling teachers to possibly foster the science-religion dialogue in their contexts of pedagogical activity.
... Of course, numerous studies have examined how individuals maintain or shift religiosity as they transit from youth to emerging adults, often referred to the ages between 18 and 25 (Arnett, 2000;Barry et al., 2010;Barry and Nelson, 2005;Davignon, 2013;Longest and Smith, 2011;Smith and Snell, 2009). 1 They have attempted to identify various factors affecting emerging adults' declining religious affiliations, such as the role of parents and peers -siblings, friends, and romantic partners, and even the media (Barry et al., 2010(Barry et al., , 2012Davignon, 2013;Smith and Snell, 2009). In addition to studies of religiosity and its change over the life course, other researchers have examined how emerging adults' religiosity is related to experiences of developmental outcomes and risky behaviors including alcohol, substance use, consumerism, and sexual activities (Burdette and Hill, 2009;Guo and Metcalfe, 2018;Sinha et al., 2007). ...
... However, universities, as secular institutions with curricula reinforcing diversity and pluralism, are places where most young adults find dating partners, friends, and older adults who influence their future employment. Previous studies have found that young people experience a cognitive dilemma when living in pluralistic secularism, self-doubts about values, and tensions and conflicts between religion and science (Dalessandro, 2016;Longest and Smith, 2011;Magyar-Russell et al., 2014;Smith and Snell, 2009). With competing narratives in secular culture and institutions, many emerging adults are expected to navigate various religious traditions, science, and even doubt with a certain degree of exploration and questioning (Magyar-Russell et al., 2014). ...
... While some emerging adults embrace and negotiate religious tolerance, other groups such as evangelical Protestants may experience more struggles. For example, emerging adults who hold the exclusivist belief that the only way to Heaven is through a belief in Jesus, are more likely to believe that religion and science are not compatible (Longest and Smith, 2011). On the other hand, groups such as Catholic college students do not perceive that their religious identities impede their integration into secular campus life. ...
The sociology of religion has not systematically explored the emerging roles of religion in the whole process of the transition to adulthood, especially in the changing contexts of delayed and complicated transitions to adulthood. Seeking to bridge the two different fields of sociology, we identify four directions of research: (1) a multidimensional approach that identifies the different dimensions of religion with varying degrees of relationship to young adults’ lives; (2) a close attention to racial/ethnic variation in the roles of religion for the transition to adulthood; (3) an open inquiry into the changing importance of religion for young adults in a rapidly shifting neoliberal global economy; and (4) the detrimental effects of religion in the transition to adulthood. We call for more research on the increasingly complex relationship between religion and the transition to adulthood.
... Although scientists are among the least likely to believe in God (Larson and Witham, 1998), many scientists and laypeople simultaneously maintain deeply-held religious beliefs and dedication to the scientific enterprise (Barbour, 2000;Legare, Evans, Rosengren, and Harris, 2012). Longest and Smith (2011) suggest that viewing science and religion as compatible may involve a reconstruction of 'religion' and an openness to alternative spiritual perspectives. Indeed, Ecklund, Park, and Sorrell (2011) found that many scientists report moving away from religion, but toward spiritual beliefs and a "feeling of something outside themselves and a deep, compelling other-centered worldview" (p. ...
... Therefore, in Study 1, we also assessed several related constructs not germane to our model in order to demonstrate discriminant validity for the two constructs. We expected to find a positive association between an interest in science and spirituality (Longest and Smith, 2011), and also between an interest in science and the belief that science and religion are compatible (Colburn and Henriques, 2006;Ecklund et al., 2011). We expected to find a positive association between commitment to scientific logic and analytical thinking style, and between scientific logic and the belief that science and religion are separate domains or in conflict (Preston and Epley, 2009). ...
... Indeed, much of the previous research and theory has focused on showing that the evidencebased reasoning, logic, and analytical thinking styles associated with science are negatively related to religious belief (e.g., Gervais and Norenzayan, 2012;Norenzayan and Gervais, 2013;Preston and Epley, 2009;Rutjens, van Harreveld, van der Pligt, Kreemers, and Noordewier, 2013). Yet another body of research shows that scientifically-minded people often retain their belief in God although their views about the nature and attributes of God may change (Colburn and Henriques, 2006;Ecklund, 2010;Longest and Smith, 2011;Pennycook et al., 2013). The present research brings together both lines of research and shows that the association between scientific engagement and belief in God depends upon (1) how science is operationalized (i.e., awe-inspiring vs. logical) and (2) what one means by belief in God (i.e., belief in 'God' vs. consideration of the diversity in God representations). ...
Science and analytical thinking have been linked with atheism. We propose dual pathways whereby scientific engagement may have paradoxical effects on belief in God. Logical aspects of science, associated with analytical thinking, are associated with unbelief. However, people can also be awed by scientific information, and awe is associated with feelings of self-transcendence and belief in a mystical God. An exploratory study (supplemental material; N = 322) and Study 1 (N = 490) demonstrated that people interested in science often hold abstract (but not personal) representations of God. This effect was mediated by a predisposition to feel awe. In Studies 2 and 3 (combined N = 570), people experimentally exposed to awe-inspiring scientific content were more likely than control participants to endorse abstract God representations. These findings suggest that scientific engagement does not always erode belief in God. Instead, science-inspired awe can increase representations of God as a mystical cosmic force or as being beyond imagination.
... Naturally, devoted traditionalists, such as those committed to orthodox religiousness, will answer these questions differently from, for example, the often less dogmatic adherents of noncreedal religions, such as Zen Buddhism, and liberal and mainline faith communities (e.g., Protestantism and progressive Roman Catholicism). The difference lies in how porous or impermeable the boundary line is between the secular and sacred (Longest & Smith, 2011). Either way, religiousness influences the ways in which emerging adults apprehend, interact, and imbibe mainstream cultural values and norms (Barry & Nelson, 2005). ...
... Either way, religiousness influences the ways in which emerging adults apprehend, interact, and imbibe mainstream cultural values and norms (Barry & Nelson, 2005). This relates to behaviors of considerable import, such as choosing a college, major, and eventual career path (Longest & Smith, 2011); seeking sexual and romantic intimacy; affiliating (or disaffiliating) with a religion; and being open to experience. ...
... Without a coherent nest, there is less psychic energy and receptive space from which to hear, attend, and grapple with life-giving questions. Consequently, the doubts aroused by classroom experiences with the sciences, for example, may be experienced as the enemy of faith, rather than an invitation to deepen and mature one's faith (Longest & Smith, 2011). Accordingly, doubt itself is not the culprit of dis-ease; rather, how emerging adults integrate doubt with their spiritual and religious worldviews is of ultimate significance. ...
... These and other mindsets guide human thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. For hundreds of years, science mindsets have changed the ways people think about God ( Barbour, 1998 ;Ecklund et al., 2011 ;Johnson et al., 2019 ;Longest and Smith, 2011 ), and faith mindsets have greatly influenced people's reliance on science ( Johnson, 2021 ;O'Brien and Noy, 2015 ;Preston and Epley, 2009 ;Rutjens et al., 2010 ;Upenieks et al., 2022 ). ...
... In a study of emerging adults, Longest and Smith (2011) found that increased religiousness was more strongly associated with the belief that the relationship between Religion and Science was compatible rather than conflicting. More recently, Leicht et al. (2021) also found a positive correlation between religiosity and the perceived compatibility of Religion and Science. ...
Religion and Science are two cultural systems that have each played a critical role in shaping human thought, feelings, and behavior, and there is an ongoing debate about the relationship between the two systems. Religion and Science may be viewed as conflicting (if one is right, the other is wrong), in dialogue (differences can be discussed and reasonably resolved), or as separate domains of inquiry. Researchers studying people's attitudes toward conflict and dialogue have focused on the main effects of religious or science-minded variables only. In contrast, we made predictions regarding an interaction effect: As faith scores increase, a positive relationship between science mindset and conflict would be attenuated (H1); and the negative relationship between science mindset and dialogue would also decrease (H2). Using a sample of 669 U.S. participants, we found support for the hypothesized interaction effect. Among participants high in faith mindset, science mindset was negatively related to conflict and positively related to dialogue. In contrast, among participants low in faith mindset, science mindset was positively related to conflict and negatively related to dialogue. Thus, it is important to consider the joint effects of faith and science mindsets when predicting views of the relationship between Religion and Science. We also explored the relationships between mindsets and Religion and Science as separate domains and found that mindsets accounted for minimal variance. We discuss how science and faith mindsets may each contribute to well-being but that endorsing a cultural narrative of Religion and Science in conflict may be detrimental to well-being.
... Academics in the field of science are disproportionately atheist or agnostic compared to the general public (Gross & Simmons, 2009) and other highly educated adults (Ecklund & Park, 2009). Still, the way in which people view the relationship between religion and science is multifaceted (Evans, 2011;Longest & Smith, 2011). Those with religious beliefs do not necessarily think of science and religion as contradictory; in fact, those in the sciences are among the most likely academic fields to see science and religion as independent or in a collaborative relationship (Scheitle, 2011a). ...
... Similarly, most scientists at several elite institutions did not view science and religion in conflict (Ecklund & Park, 2009). Longest and Smith (2011) found that most religious beliefs were related to less perceived conflict between science and religion. Still further, national survey data show that fundamentalist Christians know as much and, in some cases, know more about the scientific method than non-religious people (Evans, 2011), and majoring in the natural sciences did not significantly decrease college students' religiosity more than any other major (Scheitle, 2011b). ...
Previous research (Rios et al., 2015) showed that Christians do not tend to identify with science; that is, they reported less interest and perceived ability in science, particularly when they are reminded of the stereotype that Christians perform poorly in science—an effect explained by stereotype threat. In the present study, we propose and test a complimentary explanation for why Christians would not identify with science. The explanatory power hypothesis predicts that Christians’ relatively weaker confidence in science as the way to explain all of reality will account for any negative relationship between Christians and identification with science. We found no consistent evidence that Christians do not identify with science. The relative strength of orthodox Christian beliefs was not related to less identification with science in correlational studies (Studies 1a-1c), but self-categorized Christians identified with science less than self-categorized non-Christians (Studies 2a-2b). We did, however, find consistent evidence that Christians have relatively weaker faith in the scope of scientific explanations. Also, consistent with the explanatory power hypothesis, in cases where Christianity was related to less identification with science, this belief in the explanatory power of science accounted for that relationship (Studies 2a-2b). These findings have implications for a body of literature on ideological influences on the perception of science.
... The correlations are shown in Table 2. The magnitude of the negative correlations was unexpected because science and faith are seen as complementary by many religious people (Ecklund et al., 2011;Legare et al., 2012;Longest & Smith, 2011;Pew Research Center, 2015a). However, our results seemed to suggest that many of the study participants viewed religion and science as conflicting-regardless of the measures used to assess faith and science mindsets. ...
... However, the items are presented together in one questionnaire and may invoke perceptions of science and faith as conflicting. Although religious individuals are often able to reconcile scientific and religious beliefs (Ecklund et al., 2011;Evans & Evans, 2008;Longest & Smith, 2011), there is some evidence that many people think of science and faith as in automatic opposition (McPhetres & Zuckerman, 2018;Preston & Epley, 2009;Preston, Ritter, & Hepler, 2013) and our measure may have activated these beliefs resulting in an unusually high negative correlation. ...
The COVID-19 pandemic allowed for a naturalistic, longitudinal investigation of the relationship between faith and science mindsets and concern about COVID-19. Our goal was to examine two possible directional relationships: (Model 1) COVID-19 concern ➔ disease avoidance and self-protection motivations ➔ science and faith mindsets versus (Model 2) science and faith mindsets ➔ COVID-19 concern. We surveyed 858 Mechanical Turk workers in three waves of a study conducted in March, April, and June 2020. We found that science mindsets increased whereas faith mindsets decreased (regardless of religious type) during the early months of the pandemic. Further, bivariate correlations and autoregressive cross-lagged analyses indicated that science mindset was positive predictor of COVID-19 concern, in support of Model 2. Faith mindset was not associated with COVID-19 concern. However, faith mindset was a negative predictor of science mindset. We discuss the need for more research regarding the influence of science and faith mindsets as well as the societal consequences of the pandemic.
... Prevalence of the views, however, has varied largely between studies. For example, the conflict view has been supported only by a minority in the United States (Baker, 2012) while higher rates (53%-74%) have been reported in Eastern Europe (Pew Research Center, 2017b), England (Stolberg, 2007), and also in the United States (Longest & Smith, 2011). Individuals' views are also often not as distinct and defined as the ones described in taxonomies: some people appear undecided about how science and religion relate, and others agree with more than one view (Baker, 2012;Stolberg, 2007;Yasri et al., 2013). ...
... The few empirical studies that have investigated non-scientists' views have shown that higher religiosity increases the view that religion and science can be integrated (Longest & Smith, 2011;Uecker & Longest, 2017). In addition, Baker (2012) found that taking the Bible literally is common among people who privilege religion over science and see science and religion as incompatible. ...
Although the relationship between religion and science has long been the subject of discussion, investigations into the how and why of people's science‐religion perspectives are rare. This study examined how epistemic and ontological cognition predict agreement with four science‐religion perspectives: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Participants (N=3911) were Finnish, Danish, and Dutch adults who had answered an online study. Most people held views that were not well captured by the commonly used four categories. When more specific perspectives were examined, differences were found especially in supernatural beliefs, over‐mentalizing, and justifications for religious arguments and scientific knowledge. Thinking styles and epistemic sophistication played only a minor role. The results suggest that non‐scientists evaluate the relationship between religion and science more based on their ontological beliefs than their epistemic reflection.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... The college campus constitutes a particularly interesting context in which individuals are often exposed to various types of diversity. Emerging adulthood, generally, is a unique time of socialization and identity formation (Arnett, 2000;Longest and Smith, 2011), and religious individuals attending college tend to experience this transitional phase without the watchful eyes of their parents and religious youth leaders for the first time. But while studies consistently find that religious behavior tends to decline during college (Hill, 2009;Hunsberger, 1978;Uecker et al., 2007), evidence regarding changes in religious belief is mixed, and the processes related to these changes are complex (Hill, 2011;Mayrl and Oeur, 2009;Reimer, 2010). ...
... While most religious Americans support institutional science and most scientists do not perceive religion and science to be in conflict (Baker, 2012;Ecklund and Park, 2009;Evans and Evans, 2008), those with an exclusive view on salvation constitute an important exception. Longest and Smith (2011) found that individuals who believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus are more likely to adopt a conflict narrative between science and religion, which could contribute to selection of exclusivists out of scientific and academic majors and career paths. These findings suggest that exposure to political and religious diversity could ameliorate this effect. ...
While attending college, religious participation tends to decline among American students, but evidence of changes in religious belief is less clear. On the bases of both secularization theory and the moral communities thesis, we used multi-level modeling techniques to test whether institutional diversity predicts changes in student belief at Christian institutions. Results suggest that declines in absolutism were associated with increasing religious and political diversity, and religious diversity amplified the effects of academic tenure. Political diversity, however, explained the effects of religious diversity in combined models, suggesting that challenging political discourse may be more important for changes in religious belief than diversity of religious worldviews in the context of Christian higher education in the United States.
... How do we make sense of these competing claims? It appears to be a function of whether the question is about what is in the culture at large (Longest and Smith 2011) or about views that are personally held (Scheitle 2011). Here, the statement preceding the responses is critical. ...
... r There were significant changes in construct 6, "My own views about spirituality/religious faith have been strengthened by some of the discoveries of science," with the mean rising from 2.9 to 3.7 at posttest. In contrast to the 57% in the Longest and Smith (2011) survey cited above (whose religious views were not strengthened by the discoveries of science), participants in our study experienced a genuine contribution to their spirituality or religious faith from the sciences. ...
This article addresses how the field of religion and science will change in the coming decades by analyzing the attitudes of emerging adults (ages 18–30). I first present an overview of emerging adulthood to set the context for my analysis, especially highlighting the way in which emerging adults find themselves “in between” and in an “age of possibilities," free to explore a variety of options and thus often become “spiritual bricoleurs." Next, I expand on how a broadening pluralism in emerging adult culture changes both the conversation of “religion and science,” on one hand, and the locus for their interaction on the other. In the third section, I address the question of whether there exists a consensus view of how to relate religion and science. Paradoxically, though 18–30-year-olds perceive that there is conflict between science and religion, they personally endorse collaboration or independence. Finally, I draw conclusions for practitioners and theorists.
... At a basic level, both are a search for truth (Polkinghorne, 2007;Taylor, 2000) and attempt to explain important questions such as the genesis of life and existence (Pullman, 2017). The majority of Americans find these two systems compatible (Baker, 2012;Longest and Smith, 2011), though the relationship between science and religion has varied (Bagdonas and Silva, 2015) and their intersections have, at times, been complicated. The relationship between science and religion has been alternatively described as conflicting, integrated, compatible, and dialogic in ways that provide mutually beneficial inspiration (Barbour, 1990). ...
This article explores depictions of religion and religious topics in children's biographies included on the National Science Teacher’s Association’s Outstanding Science Trade Books for Students K-12 lists from 2011 through 2017. While disagreements and controversies about the role of religion in U.S. public schools are not new, these debates have experienced a resurgence in recent years due, in part, to the increased emphasis placed upon science as a content area. As a vital component of transformative, democratic, justice-oriented education, educators have a responsibility to validate and honor their students' religious liberties, and understand and respect a variety of different belief systems. And yet, teachers often report feeling unprepared and even afraid to discuss religions in public school settings. Grounded in the belief that all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is socially constructed, this article explores the ways in which these topics are taken up in children's books that have been identified as exemplary and recommended for classroom use.
... Nonetheless, some students maintain that science and religion can be integrated or that propositions from one field can advance the understanding of the other (Barbour, 1990). Research on school-aged children demonstrates that they often attempt to synthesize inconsistent views or are able to tolerate some levels of cognitive dissonance (Longest and Smith, 2011;Taber et al., 2011;Winslow et al., 2011;Yasri and Mancy, 2014). Students who hold a more positive attitude towards religion do not necessarily hold more negative attitudes towards science. ...
I examine the levels of educational emphases that science teachers in Evangelical Protestant (EP) schools place on (i) teaching basic content knowledge, (ii) improving scientific reasoning skills, and (iii) presenting real-world applications of science. Using a nationally representative sample of US ninth-graders, I find differences in these educational emphases between science teachers in EP schools and science teachers in secular private, Catholic, and public schools. I also find suggestive evidence that differences in STEM-related student outcomes across school sectors, which have been demonstrated in prior research, are associated with cross-sector differences in the emphases of science teachers.
... Alternatively, educators may draw upon other perspectives and worldviews utilized by others that emphasize that religion and science are compatible (Noy & O'Brien, 2016), or at least work to de-emphasize the conflict perspective. For example, this could include discussing groups and individuals that hold both scientific and religious perspectives (including some science professors (Ecklund, 2010;Gross & Simmons, 2009)) or sharing that many individuals have a more complex understanding of science and religion that includes how both are compatible and can complement one another (Longest & Smith, 2011;Scheitle, 2011). In a study of college students, Scheitle (2011) found that a majority of students thought that science and religion could support one another or are separate aspects of reality. ...
... Alternatively, educators may draw upon other perspectives and worldviews utilized by others that emphasize that religion and science are compatible (Noy & O'Brien, 2016), or at least work to de-emphasize the conflict perspective. For example, this could include discussing groups and individuals that hold both scientific and religious perspectives (including some science professors (Ecklund, 2010;Gross & Simmons, 2009)) or sharing that many individuals have a more complex understanding of science and religion that includes how both are compatible and can complement one another (Longest & Smith, 2011;Scheitle, 2011). In a study of college students, Scheitle (2011) found that a majority of students thought that science and religion could support one another or are separate aspects of reality. ...
Effects of Environment on Depressive Symptoms on Chinese Left-Behind Children Lanyan Ding & Eric S. Buhs, Ph.D. .....4 Students on the Edge: Evaluating an Academic Support Group Ben Heinisch .....26 Examining Inequalities in Science Literacy by Religious Affiliation Among Adults Alexis Swendener ........47 Applying Encoding and Retrieval Techniques to Chinese Rhyme Reading in Advanced Placement Chinese Instruction Nan Wang....64 There are not many student-run academic journals, so The Nebraska Educator is excited to provide a forum for researchers, scholars, policymakers, practitioners, teachers, students, and informed observers in education and related fields in educational settings in the United States and abroad. Now in our fourth year, it is exciting to see the work that continues to be accomplished when those interested in educational research have a venue to share their contributions. To date, articles published in the previous three volumes of our journal have been downloaded more than 14,000 times by readers all across the globe. The Nebraska Educator is an open-access peer-reviewed academic education journal at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This journal is produced by UNL graduate students and publishes articles on a broad range of education topics that are timely have relevance at all levels of education. We seek original research that covers topics which include, but are not limited to: (a) curriculum, teaching, and professional development; (b) education policy, practice, and analysis; (c) literacy, language, and culture; (d) school, society, and reform; and (e) teaching and learning with technologies. If you are interested in submitting your work to The Nebraska Educator, please submit online using: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebeducator/
... Alternatively, educators may draw upon other perspectives and worldviews utilized by others that emphasize that religion and science are compatible (Noy & O'Brien, 2016), or at least work to de-emphasize the conflict perspective. For example, this could include discussing groups and individuals that hold both scientific and religious perspectives (including some science professors (Ecklund, 2010;Gross & Simmons, 2009)) or sharing that many individuals have a more complex understanding of science and religion that includes how both are compatible and can complement one another (Longest & Smith, 2011;Scheitle, 2011). In a study of college students, Scheitle (2011) found that a majority of students thought that science and religion could support one another or are separate aspects of reality. ...
Much attention has been given to the general public’s lack of understanding of science and the adverse effect of this lack of knowledge in our ever-advancing scientific and technological society. Religion remains an important social frame through which individuals interpret information, including scientific findings and facts and one deserving of closer examination in understanding disparities in public science knowledge. Using a random sample of adults in Nebraska, this study explored the association between religious affiliation and adult scientific literacy of human biological concepts. Results found a relationship between religious affiliation and adult scientific knowledge, even after controlling for confounding demographic variables such as education, age, and gender. Specifically, Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestants had the lowest level of science knowledge compared to their counterparts with other religious affiliations and the non-affiliated. No significant gender, racial, age, or rural/urban differences emerged, but, as expected, education was positively associated with higher levels of science literacy. Implications regarding inequalities in levels of adult science literacy and strategies for educators to reduce these inequalities are discussed.
... Finally, nationally representative surveys suggest that large segments of US society view science and religion as informing one another. In a survey of emerging adults between the ages of 18 and 23 years, Longest and Smith (2011) find that 31% of respondents view science and religion as "compatible," while 41% indicated that their views on religion have been strengthened by science. Presenting respondents with different ways to characterize the relationship between science and religion, Ecklund and Scheitle (2017) found that 38% of the general US population views the science-faith interface as one of "collaboration, each can be used to help support the other." ...
Measurement of public trust in sources of information about science primarily examines whether the public turns to the "science communication industry" for information about science. Research posits, however, that scientists are not the singular cultural authority on science. Here, we examine the extent to which people turn to religion and religious individuals for information about science. Drawing on a nationally representative survey of US adults, we examine what factors-when individuals have a question about science-shape respondent's likelihood of turning to science-based versus religion-based sources. Results show that religiosity is a strong positive predictor of looking to religious sources for scientific information, but it does not deter seeking out scientific sources. The results also show that interest in science has a positive influence on the likelihood of turning to a religious source.
... I expect religious concerns to be more significant in predicting deviance on the issue of evolution than on global warming. Similar to the hypothesized relationship between politics and scientific deviance, I expect to find religious effects in the formation of consensus perception, because religious authorities also have a stake in framing the scientific consensus (Longest and Smith 2011;Rioux and Barresi 1997). ...
Scientific communities maintain respected authority on matters related to the natural world; however, there are instances where significant portions of the population hold beliefs contrary to the scientific consensus. These beliefs have generally been studied as the product of scientific illiteracy. This project reframes the issue as one of social deviance from the consensus of scientific communities. Using young-earth creationism and global warming skepticism as case studies, I suggest that consensus perception in light of public scientific deviance is a valuable dialectical framework, and demonstrate its utility using logistic regression analyses of the 2006 Pew Religion and Public Life Survey. Believing there is no scientific consensus is one of the most important factors in predicting scientifically deviant beliefs, along with political and religious effects, eclipsing education. The inability of consensus perception to explain all variation in scientific deviance lends further credence to the framework, suggesting future directions in the study of this phenomenon.
... Two questionnaires [8] [10] were used. The five point Likert scale ranged from entirely disagree to completely agree. ...
The purpose of this study is to investigate the students' attitudes towards science and religion in the Portuguese Secondary Education. The sample consists of 308 students (110 males and 198 females), including 200 Catholics and 49 atheists, from two Portuguese schools (one private and one public). A questionnaire, based on previous instruments and on new items, was used. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted. For the first part of the questionnaire eight factors were retained, including items associated with (i) faith; (ii) scientists; (iii) perspectives of science on religion; (iv) science and religion classes; (v) laws of nature; (vi) trust in science; (vii) interest in science and religion dialogue; (viii) scientific proof of the existence of God. Students expressed great confidence on science and reported to accept science theories on evolution and world beginning. Students do not perceive science classes/ teachers neither religion classes/teachers to ignore their religious faith. The answers to the second part of the questionnaire indicated that students acknowledge that science and religion teachings often enter in conflict and, accordingly, they are not completely, compatible. Students think that scientists should be free to investigate without any interference and statistical significant differences were found between Catholics and atheists. Although the new items need further work and revision, they indicated that the source of the tension between science and religion is not in the Bible nor in the evolution theory. The current findings suggest that creationism might not be as relevant for science and religion dialogue in the Portuguese context as it might be in America or England and that the scientific perspective is dominant in many regards. Ethics may be an important avenue to link science and religion, but it remains unclear what the nature of religion is and how it affects students in their relation with science. Future studies must include a larger sample of students from Secondary Education public schools in order to understand the significance of these preliminary results and to clarify where the source of tension between science and religion lays.
... Before interpreting this attitudinal evidence, we must give a cautionary note. As other social scientists have long warned, a discrepancy often exists between expressed attitudes and real-life actions (De Friese and Ford 1969;Frideres and Warner 1980;Jackman 1976;Laing 1969;La Piere 1934;Longest and Smith 2011;Perry et al. 1976;Tarter 1969;Ungar 1998;Warner and DeFleur 1967;Wicker 1969). Do attitudinal responses in this article reflect a tendency to meet expectations of "political correctness" instead of actual views? ...
The Bogardus social distance scale, which measures the level of acceptance that Americans feel toward members of the most common ethnic and racial groups in the United States, was administered six times nationally between 1920 and 2001. Replicating the most recent study with its revised list of ethnic and racial groups, the authors of this study analyzed a stratified random sample of 3,166 college students, making it the largest national social distance study ever conducted. The findings indicate an increase since 2001 in the mean level of social distance toward all ethnic groups, as well as in the spread between the groups with the highest and lowest levels of social distance. Further, a consistency between studies in group preferences reaffirms the relevance of the similarity‐attraction bond in accepting those who are racially and culturally different. Mean comparisons and analysis of variance tests also showed that gender, birthplace of respondents and/or their parents, race, and year in college are all significant indicators of the level of social distance toward groups.
... Social and cultural differences across religious traditions, however, suggest that the impact of these social changes differentially affect affiliates of various religious traditions. Evangelical Protestants are particularly likely to support prayer in public schools (Elifson and Hadaway 1985;Hoffmann and Miller 1997;Jelen and Wilcox 1995), and the evangelical Protestant culture emphasizes the public role of religion (Longest and Smith 2011;Smith 1998) and the connection between religion and the state (Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2007). Consequently, differences between evangelicals and affiliates of other religious traditions should have increased, as nonevangelicals have become less supportive of school prayer while evangelicals have remained consistently supportive of school prayer. ...
I use repeated cross-sectional survey data spanning the years 1974 to 2010 to examine changes in Americans’ views of prayer and reading the Bible in public schools. Results from logistic regression models show that support for prayer and reading the Bible in public schools was relatively high in the 1970s, and that differences between evangelical Protestants and both Catholics and mainline Protestants grew from the 1970s to the first decade of the twenty-first century. Hierarchical age-period-cohort models demonstrate that changes in support for school prayer are due to both period and birth cohort changes, that baby boom cohorts are relatively likely to oppose prayer and reading the Bible in school, and that growing differences in support for prayer and reading the Bible in school between evangelical Protestants and both Catholics and mainline Protestants are predominantly due to changes across birth cohorts. Although religious liberals and conservatives have become more alike in many ways, evangelical Protestants have diverged from affiliates of other major religious traditions in their support for prayer in public schools. These results are relevant to debates regarding the social impact of religious affiliation, generational differences, and Americans’ views of the role of religion in the public sphere.
... For example, research has shown that Caucasians and Hispanics significantly differ on scores of religious orientation (Merrill et al. 2012); therefore, different ethnicities should be examined due to the differing religious outcomes. Also, emerging adults in college may experience religion differently than people from other age groups, possibly because of social factors which may influence the assumptions of traditional worldviews (Longest and Smith 2011). Furthermore, the study involved an overwhelming majority of participants who identified themselves as Christian. ...
Recent research has suggested that religion may play an important role in determining mental health. Although research has examined the effects of religiosity on specific types of psychopathology, less research has examined psychopathology broadly in the context of particular aspects of religion. Thus, the current study examined intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity and a range of psychopathology in 486 emerging adult college students. Results of a MANOVA indicated a main effect for intrinsic religiosity on a range of psychopathology and an interaction effect between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on antisocial personality problems. Implications and limitations of the current study are discussed.
Research into varying forms of scientific research and study involve a variety of different ethical and social perspectives in order to comprehensively understand the limits and boundaries the research can be implemented into general public usage. Within the field of biotechnology, there is an abundance of diverse responses due to its ability to alter a being's body both presently and within future generations, most of which emerging from religious denominations. In particular, Christian sects have shown a certain hesitancy towards scientific advancement and ideologies that violate their own beliefs, a pattern which has been illustrated since the 16 and 17th centuries with the introduction of the Scientific Revolution. However, different Christian branches may view the implementation of biotechnology with a more beneficial perspective than others, which is why it is important to understand whether the continued advancement of biotechnology is resilient against the ethical values of Christianity within contemporary society. The need of biotechnological advancement to develop resiliency towards the negative connotations Christian communities hold may see it fit to decrease over time due to an increasing popularity to view science as an ability to aid humans in different illnesses within younger generations. However, opportunities for Christian communities to learn scientific concepts is still important since efforts to successfully introduce the advantages of biotechnology may be obsolete if religious communities wish to adhere to their own beliefs.
Many questions arise regarding the compatibility between scientific and religious education. While some voices have pointed to issues that stem from a traditional model in which science becomes a factor or religious crisis and doubt, other views reveal surprising forms of collaboration and complementarity between both dimensions in the educational curriculum. To better understand how those directly involved – the students – perceive that possible conflict, an international team has launched an extensive survey in three Catholic countries – Italy, Poland and Spain – to assess to what extent that relationship is viewed in a more or less problematic way. The results point to an overcoming of the conflictive model by those with more religious formation and practice, and point towards a possible arrangement between both science and religion in regular education.
Discussions on the relationship between science and religion have always been popular and controversial. The cause-and-effect relationship between the two is a complex one that is difficult to make precise and clear interpretations of. The impact of science on religion and beliefs is evaluated from two opposite perspectives. According to the first perspective, science is a factor that encourages people to think and question and not accept the knowledge that experiments cannot prove; thus, it causes them to draw away from metaphysical beliefs. According to the other view, science is thought to increase the faith of
believers by explaining a created universe in detail. In this study, the possible effects of natural science studies on the belief in God are examined. The study is a qualitative case study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 7 young scientists from Turkey doing postgraduate studies in different fields of natural sciences in England. The interviews were analyzed descriptively, and common themes were developed from the experiences of the participants. In addition, previous studies were scanned, and they were referred to while interpreting the findings of the study as well. As a result of this study, the following were identified: Although the rates of disbelief are high among natural scientists and natural science studies may cause people to question religions and reject some of their
claims, these studies are not the primary reasons for radical changes in belief in God. On the contrary, the findings of these natural sciences can be used to support both belief and disbelief. Social factors such as family religiosity and being exposed to or witnessing the wrong or abusive behaviors of those who claim to be religious and religious authorities have a more severe effect on the beliefs of individuals.
Within the last 20 years sociological research on science and religion has provided new insights that challenge myths regarding conflicts between science and religion. Gaps in pre-existing work have been identified resulting in major shifts in the field. In particular, research has employed more mixed methods, widened its scope to become more international, and expanded to include nonreligion. Building upon these developments and critiques, this chiefly conceptual article explores a way to move forward by combining three fields of research in a novel way: the sociology of religion, the sociology of nonreligion, and the Public Understanding of Science (PUS). These subfields all touch on relevant and interrelated topics. Sociology of religion contributes to parceling out aspects of belief, identity, and practice; focuses on lived experience along with positionality, normative commitments, and culture. The sociology of nonreligion draws more detailed attention to the association between science and secularism. Finally, including research on PUS provides resources for understanding trust in, and engagement with science dialogically, as well as lessons for effective public engagement.
Underlining the application of forensic science methods in police investigations is investigators’ perceptions of the methods. The premise is that a positive perception indicates a willingness to apply forensic science in criminal investigations, regardless of prior forensic training. This study compared common sociodemographic markers with regard to perceptions of forensic science application in criminal investigations among investigating police officers in Nigeria, controlling for forensic training. The six sociodemographic markers were: gender, age, marital status, highest educational qualification, rank, and years in service. The survey used a self-administered questionnaire for data collection. Based on a total population of 3771 investigating police officers, a sample size of 347 was determined using Krejcie and Morgan’s formula ( Krejcie RV and Morgan DW (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30(3): 607–610). A potential 20% dropout rate was added giving a sample size of 416. No difference was found across the sociodemographic markers with regards to the perception of forensic science utilization in criminal investigations ( p > .05), except for the highest educational qualification ( p = .008) and rank ( p = .042) of the respondents. The perception score was higher in the primary school category than in the secondary school and diploma certificate categories. Comparison between the categories secondary certificate and degree/HND certificate indicated a statistically significant lower perception score in the secondary certificate category. The perception score was lower in the diploma category than in the degree/HND certificate and postgraduate categories. For police rank, pairwise comparison showed that the officer category had a higher perception score than the constable category. There was also a statistically significant higher perception of forensic science among inspectors than among constables. It is recommended that educational qualification and rank should be considered when deploying police personnel to the criminal investigation department.
Background
Religion and science are typically portrayed as fundamentally at odds and in competition over truth claims. Yet recent studies have shown that many Americans, including scientists, do not necessarily hold such a straightforward perspective on this complicated relationship. The majority of current studies have been limited in fully capturing the way people construct and understand the relationship between these domains given their predominant use of close-ended survey methodologies.PurposeThis study seeks to enhance our knowledge of how people navigate religion and science issues by allowing young adults to respond to open-ended questions from semi-structured, in-depth interviews about how they navigate the domains of religion and science.Methods
We analyze 214 qualitative, in-depth interviews with young adults who participated in Wave 3 of the National Study of Youth and Religion.ResultsResults confirm that a warfare model is not the dominant perspective among young adults today. Rather, analyses revealed five predominant themes among young adults: (1) They commonly construe this relationship in purely individualistic terms, believing people do and should sort the truth out for themselves; (2) They see the two as mutually deficient and therefore both are needed to answer different questions; (3) Their understanding of this relationship reduces to how one views the origins of the world; (4) They believe the two can actually be mutually supportive; and (5) Any contention between the two stems from institutional conflicts, primarily in the realm of education, not competing claims about fundamental truths.Conclusions and ImplicationsBeliefs about religion and science among young adults are complex and not captured fully by close-ended survey questions. This question is clearly one that most young adults have considered and can articulate. Future research should consider how these beliefs are formulated and what influence they have on life outcomes.
This study aims to report about the effect of future anxiety on the subjective well-being of emerging adulthood with religiosity as a moderator for students at the Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Bumi Siliwangi. This research uses a quantitative approach with a moderated causal method. The sample in this study was 300 final-year students at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. The sampling technique in this study uses accidental sampling. The instruments used are Future Anxiety Measurement, Satisfaction with life, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (HEAT), Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS), Muslim Religiosity Scale (MRS), and A Psychological Measure of Islamic Religiousness. The analysis technique used is a simple regression and Moderated Regression Analyze (MRA). The results showed that the moderator variable of religiosity showed insignificant results. So it can be said that religiosity cannot moderate the influence of anxiety about the future on subjective well-being at the final year students of Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Copyright © 2020. Psikoislamika: Jurnal Psikologi dan Psikologi Islam
In this chapter, we present and analyse the perceptions of Portuguese students about the relationship between science and religion in a Catholic cultural context. A pen and paper questionnaire was answered by 308 High School students. Results suggest that conflict, independence, and dialogue seem to be ways adopted by respondents for conceiving the relationship between science and religion. It is worth mentioning that the Bible and the theory of the evolution of species do not seem to be the reasons why science and religion are perceived as conflictual among young believers. Further research is necessary to understand the sources of conflictual perceptions, exploring the consistency of results across different levels of analysis.
Using General Social Survey data (n = 3,504), we examine racial, ethnic, and gender divisions in perspectives on science and religion. We find that while blacks and Latinos are each more likely than whites to be oriented toward religion and away from science, gender differentiates this perspective among Latinos and whites but not among blacks. Furthermore, although whites are more likely than blacks and Latinos to be oriented toward both science and religion, Latino men are more likely than Latina women to be so, but there is no gender difference among blacks or whites. We argue that the collective memory of gendered experiences with racism vis-à-vis science and religion contribute to group-specific views of these two sources of knowledge and authority. These findings underscore the value of an intersectional approach to understanding attitudinal divides and political culture in the United States.
Social scientists know very little about the consequences of exposure to scientific knowledge and holding different perspectives on science and religion for individuals' religious lives. Drawing on secularization and post-secular theories, we develop and test several hypotheses about the relationships among exposure to scientific knowledge, perspectives on religion and science, and religious commitment using panel data from the National Study of Youth and Religion. Our findings indicate that religious faith is strongest among young adults who: (1) accommodate scientific knowledge into their religious perspective, or (2) reject scientific knowledge that directly contradicts their religious beliefs about the origins of the world. Young adults are also more likely to have lower religious commitment when they view science and religion as independent institutions, lending support to secularization ideas about how social differentiation secularizes individuals. We further find that mere exposure to scientific knowledge, in terms of majoring in biology or acknowledging conflict between the teachings of religion and science, is usually not sufficient to undermine religious commitment.
Science is frequently defined by the types of empirical methods and knowledge production practices employed, all with the goal to better understand the natural world. Nature is the “stuff” or subject of science. It is perceived as the domain of natural scientists since they receive extensive training to discover what exists “out there.” Yet social scientists have long been interested in the institution of science—how science is produced, practiced, and understood as an institution by the broader public. Throughout this chapter, I review general trends within social science literature centered on the interaction between religion and science. Rather than regard secularization as inevitable, I discuss how increasingly scholars are able empirically to trace the ways in which individuals (both the general public and those in the academy) interact with institutional sources of authority (both religious and scientific) in light of variation in beliefs, knowledge, and practices.
Do religious cultures hold enough sway over individuals’ life choices that they can be considered causal mechanisms generating inequality in contemporary American society? Can religious identification and participation create normative standards of behavior that either aid or hinder the development of human capital and either encourage or discourage its use to achieve financial success? These have been pressing questions since Max Weber first wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Yet the contemporary transformation of class structure in postindustrial societies and the declining strength of traditional denominational differences (particularly Protestant–Catholic) raise these issues anew. The new occupational structure of service economies, the increasing importance of dual earners in households to achieve middle class housing and status, the crucial role of postsecondary education (both the type of institution and major) for occupational success, and the critical role of marriage and family postponement in achieving stable lucrative employment all point to new avenues through which religion might influence class location. Establishing a theory of causality, however, requires evidence that religious participation directly influences behavioral choices, rather than simply attracting people who have made similar life choices for disparate (nonreligious) reasons together in congregations. In this chapter, we review the existence of class-based differences in religious preferences and participation, and we theorize that these differences are not just the epiphenomenon of class-based religious “tastes” but are mechanisms through which class is constructed and reconstructed across generations.
Using General Social Survey data, we examine perspectives on science and religion in the United States. Latent class analysis reveals three groups based on knowledge and attitudes about science, religiosity, and preferences for certain religious interpretations of the world. The traditional perspective (43 percent) is marked by a preference for religion compared to science; the modern perspective (36 percent) holds the opposite view. A third perspective, which we call post-secular (21 percent), views both science and religion favorably. However, when faced with competing accounts of events such as creation and evolution, post-seculars root their views in religion rather than in mainstream science. Regression models indicate that perspectives on science and religion do not simply mirror other denominational or ideological differences. Furthermore, religio-scientific perspectives shape attitudes about political issues where scientific and some religious communities diverge, including on abortion rights and stem cell research. Overall, most individuals favor either scientific or religious ways of understanding, but many scientifically inclined individuals prefer certain religious accounts. This suggests that public divisions related to science and religion are cultural and epistemological. This article underscores the complexity of the boundary between reason and faith and highlights the roots of political conflict in perspectives on science and religion in the United States.
The timing of individuals' family formation is important for a number of socioeconomic and health outcomes. We examine the influence of religious schools and home schools on the timing of first marriage and first birth using data from the Cardus Education Study Graduate Survey (N = 1,496). Our results from life tables and event-history regression models show that, on average, graduates of evangelical Protestant schools-but not Catholic school or homeschool graduates-have earlier marriages and births than public school graduates. Catholic school students have later first births on average than public school graduates. Models interacting schooling type with age and age-squared suggest that evangelical schoolers' higher odds of marriage stem from higher odds of marrying at ages 21-30, and their higher odds of first birth stem from higher odds of births from ages 25-34. Catholic school and nonreligious private school students also have higher odds of marrying in the mid-20s and early-30s than do public school students. Evangelical, non-religious private, and Catholic school students all have lower odds of teenage births than public school students but higher odds of birth later in the life course. Homeschoolers do not differ on either outcome at any age. Our findings suggest that schools socialize their students with distinctive attitudes toward family formation that influence their behavior even many years after graduation, though these schools do not appear to be particularly harmful to life chances in terms of fostering marriage or childbearing at very young ages.
Police and scholars note that successful crime fighting requires police and residents to “co-produce” public safety. However, residents are often reluctant to get involved in policing initiatives or even report crimes they witness. One possible means of stimulating resident involvement in crime-control activities is through neighborhood organizations. This research, conducted on 1,313 residents of 42 neighborhoods in western South Carolina, investigates whether neighborhood organization participation increases the likelihood of assisting police in crime-control efforts. Results indicate that organization participants are more likely to assist police than are nonparticipants, even after controlling for social cohesion, perceptions of police legitimacy, various policing strategies, fear of crime, and demographic factors.
World polity embeddedness has traditionally been measured by state and civil participation in formal venues, including international organizations, multilateral agreements, and world conferences. In this study, we highlight an alternative form of embeddedness found in cross-national social relations and apply this framework to the human rights sector of the world polity. Specifically, we propose that the international migrant community diffuses human rights values and practices via (1) local performance and (2) cross-national communication. Using data from the World Values Survey, we first show that immigrants are more likely to embrace, and actively participate in, the human rights movement. Next, using network data that report country-to-country bilateral flows, we observe a high degree of correspondence between international migration and telecommunications, confirming previous studies that trace telephone traffic to the flow of people. Finally, analyzing a balanced data set of 333 observations across 111 countries spanning the 1975–2000 period, we use ordered probit regression to assess the local and cross-national effects of migrants on a state’s human rights record. We find that a country’s immigration level and its in-degree centrality in international telecommunications both positively affect its Amnesty International rating, and that these effects are robust to a number of alternative specifications.
Drawing from a survey conducted in Los Angeles, we examine perceptions of achievement and optimism about reaching the American dream among racial, ethnic, and nativity groups. We find blacks and Asian Americans less likely than whites to believe they have reached the American dream. Latinos stand out for their upbeat assessments, with naturalized citizens possessing a stronger sense of achievement and noncitizens generally optimistic that they will eventually fulfill the American dream. We discuss patterns of variation between the racial and ethnic groups as well as variation within each group. Notwithstanding interesting differences along lines of race, ethnicity, and nativity, we find no evidence that the nation’s changing ethnic stew has diluted faith in the American dream.
When war challenges civilian survival, what shapes the balance between normative and instrumental rationalities in survival practices? Increasing desperation and uncertainty can lead civilians to focus on their own material interests and to violate norms in the name of survival or gain—to the detriment of the war effort and of other civilians. Do norms, boundaries against transgressions, and considerations of collective interests and identities persist, and, if so, through what mechanisms? Using diaries and recollections from the 872-day Blockade of Leningrad (1941–1944)—an extreme case of wartime desperation—this article examines how three forms of cultural embeddedness shape variation in the strength of norms against calculative, instrumental rationality. Proximity and empathy with others, the structure of norms and analogies to legitimate instrumental practices, and reflexivity vis-à-vis war and others’ response interact dialectically with the war context to shape variation in violating norms and rationalizing transgressions. Theft of food and cannibalism, which involve tactics of survival or gain that also risk the well-being of victims (theft) or violation of a powerful taboo (cannibalism), demonstrate the weakness of norms on the margins but their power when core norms or other real, visible individuals are threatened.
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Arab Americans faced increased discrimination that permeated almost every aspect of their lives. Previous research has documented the negative attention toward Arab Americans after 9/11 and the effect it has had on this community. However, less research has focused on discrimination against Arab Americans during the process of obtaining employment in the United States. To address this gap in the current literature, we conducted a correspondence study in which we randomly assigned a typical white-sounding name or a typical Arab-sounding name to two similar fictitious résumés. We sent résumés to 265 jobs over a 15-month period. We found that an Arab male applicant needed to send two résumés to every one résumé sent by a white male applicant to receive a callback for an interview by the hiring personnel. Our findings suggest that the difference in callbacks may be the result of discrimination against the perceived race/ethnicity of the applicant by the hiring personnel.
Research on moral judgment has been dominated by rationalist models, in which moral judgment is thought to be caused by moral reasoning. The author gives 4 reasons for considering the hypothesis that moral reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post hoc construction, generated after a judgment has been reached. The social intuitionist model is presented as an alternative to rationalist models. The model is a social model in that it deemphasizes the private reasoning done by individuals and emphasizes instead the importance of social and cultural influences. The model is an intuitionist model in that it states that moral judgment is generally the result of quick, automatic evaluations (intuitions). The model is more consistent than rationalist models with recent findings in social, cultural, evolutionary, and biological psychology, as well as in anthropology and primatology.
Response styles are a source of contamination in questionnaire ratings, and therefore they threaten the validity of conclusions drawn from marketing research data. In this article, the authors examine five forms of stylistic responding (acquiescence and disacquiescence response styles, extreme response style/response range, midpoint responding, and noncontingent responding) and discuss their biasing effects on scale scores and correlations between scales. Using data from large, representative samples of consumers from 11 countries of the European Union, the authors find systematic effects of response styles on scale scores as a function of two scale characteristics (the proportion of reverse-scored items and the extent of deviation of the scale mean from the midpoint of the response scale) and show that correlations between scales can be biased upward or downward depending on the correlation between the response style components. In combination with the apparent lack of concern with response styles evidenced in a secondary analysis of commonly used marketing scales, these findings suggest that marketing researchers should pay greater attention to the phenomenon of stylistic responding when constructing and using measurement instruments.
How important is religion for young people in America today? What are the major influences on their developing spiritual lives? How do religious beliefs and practices change as young people enter into adulthood? This book explores these questions and many others as it tells the definitive story of the religious and spiritual lives of emerging adults, ages eighteen to twenty-four, in the U.S. today. Based on candid interviews with thousands of young people tracked over a five-year period, this book reveals how the religious practices of the teenagers portrayed in a previous book Soul Searching have been strengthened, challenged, and often changed as the young people have moved into adulthood. The book vividly describes as well the broader cultural world of today's emerging adults, how that culture shapes their religious outlooks, and what the consequences are for religious faith and practice in America more generally. Some of the book's findings are surprising. Parents turn out to be the single most important influence on the religious outcomes in the lives of young adults. On the other hand, teenage participation in evangelization missions and youth groups does not predict a high level of religiosity just a few years later. Moreover, the common wisdom that religiosity declines sharply during the young adult years is shown to be greatly exaggerated.
Using elements borrowed from psychology, sociology, and history, this article outlines a conceptual framework for the analysis of personality in the life course. It is proposed that the interactional framework toward which personality psychology aspires may be conceived of as a sequence of interactions of personality with age-graded roles and social transitions in historically changing environments. To the extent that one can (a) identify the age-graded role paths in the social structure, (b) select the age-relevant situations in which these roles are enacted, and (c) identify measures relevant to the culture pattern across these age-relevant situations, it should be possible to uncover the coherence of personality—ways of approaching and responding to the world—across time and in diverse situations. Each of these steps is delineated and then illustrated with a longitudinal study of explosive, undercontrolled children. This is not an effort to articulate a theory of personality development but to outline the parameters of social life—temporal and situational—to which personality research should attend. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)
The religiosity of scientists is a persistent topic of interest and debate among both popular and academic commentators. Researchers look to this population as a case study for understanding the intellectual tensions between religion and science and the possible secularizing effects of education. There is little systematic study, however, of religious belief and identity among academic scientists at elite institutions, leaving a lacuna of knowledge in this area. This absence of data exists at a time when the intersection between religion and science is reaching heightened public attention. Especially with increased tensions surrounding teaching evolution in the public schools, understanding what kind of resources scientists have (particularly in terms of their own religious beliefs and practices) to transmit science to a broader religiously-motivated public is crucial. Using data from a recent survey of academic scientists at twenty-one elite U.S. research universities, we compare the religious beliefs and practices of natural and social scientists within seven disciplines as well as academic scientists to the general population. We find that field-specific and interdisciplinary differences are not as significant in predicting religiosity as other research suggests. Instead, demographic factors such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household are the strongest predictors of religious difference among scientists. In particular, religiosity in the home as a child is the most important predictor of present religiosity among this group of scientists. We discuss the relevance these findings have for understanding issues related to current theory and public debate about the intersection between religion and science.
The proportion of Americans who reported no religious preference doubled from 7 percent to 14 percent in the 1990s. This dramatic change may have resulted from demographic shifts, increasing religious skepticism, or the mix of politics and reli- gion that characterized the 1990s. One demographic factor is the succession of generations; the percentage of adults who had been raised with no religion in- creased from 2 percent to 6 percent. Delayed marriage and parenthood also contrib- uted to the increase. Religious skepticism proved to be an unlikely explanation: Most people with no preference hold conventional religious beliefs, despite their alien- ation from organized religion. In fact, these "unchurched believers" made up most of the increase in the "no religion" preferences. Politics, too, was a significant factor. The increase in "no religion" responses was confined to political moderates and liberals; the religious preferences of political conservatives did not change. This political part of the increase in "nones" can be viewed as a symbolic statement against the Religious Right.
There is no conflict between science and religion. Creationism is only a local movement, prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that read the Bible as an inerrant, literally true document. Creationism based on biblical literalism makes little sense in either Catholicism or Judaism, for neither religion maintains any extensive tradition for reading the Bible as literal truth. The lack of conflict arises from a lack of overlap between the respective domains of professional expertise of science and religion. No conflict should exist because the magisteria of science and religion do not overlap. According to the principle of NOMA — “nonoverlapping magisteria” — science covers the empirical universe, while religion covers questions of moral meaning and ethical value. This principle was obeyed by both Pius XII and John Paul II. They both saw no conflict between Catholic faith and a theory of evolution. However, there is one important difference between their positions. Pius XII admitted evolution as a legitimate hypothesis, but at the same time he proclaimed that the theory of evolution had not been proven and might well be wrong. On the other hand, John Paul II stated that evolution can no longer be doubted. Now, he stated, evolution must be accepted not merely as a plausible possibility but also as an effectively proven fact. This fact is no threat to religion if one accepts the principle of NOMA. As a consequence of this principle, religion can no longer dictate the factual conclusions that belong to the magisterium of science, nor may scientists decide on moral truths.
Sociologists of religion have often connected secularization to science, but have rarely examined the role of religion in the lives of scientists or how the sciences have changed religiously over time. Here we address this shortcoming by comparing religiosity between two samples of elite academic natural and social scientists, one in 1969 and one in 2005. Findings show an overall decline in religiosity among university scientists as well as a change in their religious composition. Attendance rates were lower for social scientists in 1969 compared to natural scientists, but in 2005 growing parity in attendance occurred between the two fields. Findings also show a decline in the proportion of Protestant scientists and a growth in Catholic scientists. Demographic factors associated with religiosity in the general population, with the exception of age and having children, had no impact among elite academic scientists. Overall, findings challenge and revise older studies on the role of religion in the lives of scientists. Specific results are connected to theories that pose science as a master identity, which may be mitigated by some institutionalized aspects of religion. They also lead to new directions in the sociology of religion that take seriously the role of religion in the lives of elites and connect societal religious changes to differences between institutional spheres, particularly those, such as the academy, that play a leadership role in society.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, evangelicals often took their place among prominent practicing scientists, and their perspectives exerted a considerable impact on the development of modern western science. Over the last century, however, evangelical scientists have become less visible, even as the focus of evangelical engagement has shifted to political and cultural spheres. Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective offers the first wide-ranging survey of the history of the encounter between evangelical Protestantism and science. Comprising papers by leading historians of science and religion, this collection shows that the questions of science have been central to the history of evangelicalism in the United States, as well as in Britain and Canada. It will be an invaluable resource for understanding the historical context of contemporary political squabbles, such as the debate over the status of creation science and the teaching of evolution.
Sociologists, historians, and other social observers have long considered the secularization of American public life over the past hundred and thirty years to be an inevitable and natural outcome of modernization. This book rejects this view and fundamentally rethinks the historical and theoretical causes of the secularization of American public life between 1870 and 1930. The editor and his team of contributors argue that the declining authority of religion was not the by-product of modernization, but rather the intentional achievement of cultural and intellectual elites, including scientists, academics, and literary intellectuals, seeking to gain control of social institutions and increase their own cultural authority. The contributors examine power struggles and ideological shifts in various social sectors where the public authority of religion has diminished, in particular education, science, law, and journalism. Together the chapters depict a cultural and institutional revolution that is best understood in terms of individual agency, conflicts of interest, resource mobilization, and struggles for authority. Engaging both sociological and historical literature, the book offers a new theoretical framework and original empirical research that will inform our understanding of American society from the nineteenth to the twenty-first century.
Data from a probability sample of a state university faculty are analyzed to determine whether academic discipline is predictive of faculty religiosity. Wide variations observed on four of Glock's proposed dimensions of religiosity are compared to the scientist-nonscientist dichotomy of fields and to "scholarly distance from religion," a construct delineated in the paper. The scientist-nonscientist scheme is not predictive of religiosity scores. Scholarly distance from religion successfully orders the scores. A relationship between scholarly distance from religion and religiosity seems to be interpreted partly by the effect of scholarly distance from religion on cognitive differentiation of religion and on social support for religiosity, especially the former. Selectivity of discipline and present religiosity appear to be based on childhood religious background, but controlling for childhood religiosity does not alter the original relationships greatly.
Americans support science as well as religion-but these two things are often at odds. In the wake of recent controversies about teaching intelligent design and the ethics of embryonic-stem- cell research, greater understanding between scientists and the general religious public is critical. What is needed is a balanced assessment of the middle ground that can exist between science and religion. Science vs. Religion: What Do Scientists Really Think? is the definitive statement on this timely, politically charged subject. After thousands of hours spent talking to the nation's leading scientists, Elaine Howard Ecklund argues that the American public has widespread misconceptions about scientists' views of religion. Few scientists are committed secularists. Only a small minority actively reject and work against religion. And many are themselves religious. The majority are whom she calls spiritual pioneers, who desire to link their spirituality with a greater mission for the work they do as scientists. In the current climate, even scientists who are not religious recognize that they must engage with religion as they are pressed by their students to respond to faith in the classroom-what Ecklund calls environmental push. Based on a survey and interviews with scientists at more than 20 elite U.S. universities, Ecklund's book argues that other scientists must step up to the table of dialogue and that American believers must embrace science again. Both science and religion are at stake if any less is done.
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and adherents of other non-Western religions have become a significant presence in the United States in recent years. Yet many Americans continue to regard the United States as a Christian society. How are we adapting to the new diversity? Do we casually announce that we "respect" the faiths of non-Christians without understanding much about those faiths? Are we willing to do the hard work required to achieve genuine religious pluralism? Award-winning author Robert Wuthnow tackles these and other difficult questions surrounding religious diversity and does so with his characteristic rigor and style. America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity looks not only at how we have adapted to diversity in the past, but at the ways rank-and-file Americans, clergy, and other community leaders are responding today. Drawing from a new national survey and hundreds of in-depth qualitative interviews, this book is the first systematic effort to assess how well the nation is meeting the current challenges of religious and cultural diversity. The results, Wuthnow argues, are both encouraging and sobering--encouraging because most Americans do recognize the right of diverse groups to worship freely, but sobering because few Americans have bothered to learn much about religions other than their own or to engage in constructive interreligious dialogue. Wuthnow contends that responses to religious diversity are fundamentally deeper than polite discussions about civil liberties and tolerance would suggest. Rather, he writes, religious diversity strikes us at the very core of our personal and national theologies. Only by understanding this important dimension of our culture will we be able to move toward a more reflective approach to religious pluralism.
This book examines the popular writings of the six scientists who have been the most influential in shaping perceptions of science, how it works, and how it relates to other fields of human endeavor, especially religion. Biologists Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Edward O. Wilson; and physicists Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Steven Weinberg, form a constellation of scientists who have become public intellectuals, influencing millions of people around the world. All six have made major and highly original contributions to science, and all six have stepped onto the public stage, articulating a much larger vision for science, how it should work, and what role it should play in the worldview of the modern world. In so doing, they have challenged many traditional ideas, such as belief in God. The scientific prestige and literary eloquence of these great thinkers combine to transform them into what can only be called oracles of science. Their controversial, often personal, sometimes idiosyncratic opinions exert an enormous influence on modern intellectual conversation, both inside and outside science. The book carefully distinguishes science from philosophy and religion in the writings of the oracles, and invites readers to a respectful dialogue with some of the greatest minds of our time.
This book aims to provide new insights on the religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. It presents the main findings of the National Study of Youth and Religion, a research project on the religious and spiritual lives of American adolescents conducted at the University of North Carolina from 2001 to 2005. The survey captured a broad range of differences among U.S. teens in religion, age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, rural-suburban-urban residence, region of the country, and language spoken. The book provides answers to questions about the character of teenage religion, the extent of spiritual seeking among youth, how religion affects adolescent moral reasoning and risk behaviors, and much more. It is hoped that by informing readers about the religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers, it will help foster discussions in families, religious congregations, community organizations, and beyond, not only about the general state of religion in the United States, but also about cultural and institutional practices that may better serve and care for American teens.
Using data from the 1988 General Social Survey, this study examines an important and neglected topic: the multifaceted relationships between Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science. Findings indicate that three specific aspects of conservative theology--biblical literalism, theological orthodoxy, and the perceived ubiquity of sin -- are associated with moral criticisms of science. Theological factors generally mediate the relationships between Conservative Protestant denominational ties and these science attitudes. However, the members of such groups are also more skeptical of the value of science on pragmatic grounds, for reasons that do not appear associated with these theological factors. A number of implications and promising directions for future research are discussed.
For many years, social scientists have reported that southerners express lower levels of tolerance vis-à-vis unpopular groups
than nonsoutherners. Some researchers have suggested that these widely observed regional variations are due to the prominence
of fundamentalist Protestantism in the South. In analyses of data from the 1988 General Social Survey, however, this hypothesis
receives only partial support. Substantial regional differences in tolerance of left-wing groups, including communists, atheists,
and homosexuals, persist despite controls for a range of religious variables. We suggest that future research on regional
differences in public attitudes should consider contextual as well as individual religious factors.
Data on present and past religiosity of university faculty members in six major academic fields suggest that the relatively high present religiosity of members of "applied" fields is the result of a selective process and a low rate of secularization. This also accounts for the lower religiosity of natural scientists. But low religiosity in the humanities more often is due to late secularization. Both the latter and a selective process underlie low religiosity among social scientists. Religious beliefs are a better predictor of perceived conflict between religious convictions and academic knowledge and of concern about it than is academic field. Academic field, however, is the better predictor of modes of relating these two spheres of ideas to each other.
Data from a probability sample of a state university faculty are analyzed to determine whether academic discipline is predictive
of faculty religiosity. Wide variations observed on four of dock's proposed dimensions of religiosity are compared to the
scientist-nonscientist dichotomy of fields and to “scholarly distance from religion,” a construct delineated in the paper.
The scientist-nonscientist scheme is not predictive of religiosity scores. Scholarly distance from religion successfully orders
the scores. A relationship between scholarly distance from religion and religiosity seems to be interpreted partly by the
effect of scholarly distance from religion on cognitive differentiation of religion and on social support for religiosity,
especially the former. Selectivity of discipline and present religiosity appear to be based on childhood religious background,
but controlling for childhood religiosity does not alter the original relationships greatly.
Finally, social scientists have begun to attempt to understand religious behavior rather than to discredit it as irrational, ignorant, or foolish--and Rodney Stark and Roger Finke have played a major role in this new approach. Acknowledging that science cannot assess the supernatural side of religion (and therefore should not claim to do so), Stark and Finke analyze the observable, human side of faith. In clear and engaging prose, the authors combine explicit theorizing with animated discussions as they move from considering the religiousness of individuals to the dynamics of religious groups and then to the religious workings of entire societies as religious groups contend for support. The result is a comprehensive new paradigm for the social-scientific study of religion.
An initial set of questions which might be suggested by the title is: • What is meant by science? • What is meant by religion? • Is there any interplay between the two disciplines? • If so, where does this interplay occur? • What is the nature of the interplay? • How has the interplay been perceived? — an historical question. • Can the perceptions be justified? — a philosophical question. It is unnecessary for present purposes — and certainly risky — to attempt a definition, let alone a rigorous analysis, of what constitutes science or religion; the debates about demar-cation criteria are extensive. As far as science is concerned, the physical, life and behav-ioural sciences are in mind. With reference to religion, the issues under review are mainly connected with major world religions which include articulated theologies in which cogni-tive claims are being made. Particular attention is paid here to the Christian religion. Is there any interplay between the two disciplines? A quick answer to this question is 'yes', both currently and in the past. Accounts of this in-terplay can be given from historical and sociological perspectives. Whether there is any justification for the claims made about this interplay is a separate matter — a philosophi-cal one.
Most sociological research assumes that social network composition shapes individual beliefs. Network theory and research
has not adequately considered that internalized cultural worldviews might affect network composition. Drawing on a synthetic,
dual-process theory of culture and two waves of nationally-representative panel data, this article shows that worldviews are
strong predictors of changes in network composition among U.S. youth. These effects are robust to the influence of other structural
factors, including prior network composition and behavioral homophily. By contrast, there is little evidence that networks
play a strong proximate role in shaping worldviews. This suggests that internalized cultural dispositions play an important
role in shaping the interpersonal environment and that the dynamic link between culture and social structure needs to be reconsidered.
New cultural approaches to the study of poverty treat “culture” as providing the means for action and neglect the classical concern with motives for action. The author argues that though this paradigm shift has led to many important and interesting discoveries, it has also created blind spots that prevent a more complete understanding of how culture shapes action. After arguing that values, attitudes, and other motive concepts have been unfairly excluded from the new cultural pantheon, the author uses the empirical example of educational continuation to show that poor and nonpoor youth differ in their educational aspirations and that these differences can predict school continuation six years later. The findings are interpreted with an eye toward synthesizing “old” and “new” approaches to the study of culture and socioeconomic disadvantage.
John Polkinghorne brings unique qualifications to his exploration of the possibilities of believing in God in an age of science - he is internationally known as a theoretical physicist and as a theologian. In this thought-provoking book, Polkinghorne focuses on the collegiality between science and theology, contending that the inquiries of these "intellectual cousins" are parallel.
Although the suggestion eighty years ago that four in ten scientists did
not believe in God or an afterlife was astounding to contemporaries, the
fact that so many scientists believe in God today is equally surprising.
principal investigator of the Religion among Academic Scientists (RAAS) study. Religion occupies a controversial place in university settings. While some university scholars historically viewed scientific knowledge as incompatible with religion, 1 students are increasingly interested in religion as well as less traditional forms of spirituality. Some faculty and administrators might want to ignore religion, but in broader American public spheres religious rhetoric continues to be a force. In this context, many faculty, university chaplains, and administrators are searching for ways to meet the needs of already religious students and those exploring religion and spirituality, while not violating accepted academic norms of pluralism and tolerance. Researchers concerned about these issues in universities are beginning to study the beliefs of students. 2 Until recently, however, there has been only a small amount of systematic research that explores the influence of religion or spirituality on university professors themselves. 3 This is particularly relevant for those in the sciences, the fields where there is the most public controversy about the involvement of religion. Without such information we know little about the role university scientists have in shaping the place of religion in the academy as well as public
American adults and K–12 students frequently report nonrationalist views about creationism and evolution. Efforts to force
educators to include material on “intelligent design” theory are causing widespread concern in the science education community.
I report here the effects of a modified approach to a majors-oriented college introductory biology course. The course was
modified to connect with the experiences, knowledge, and beliefs that most students bring to college, with the intent of engaging
prior learning about creationism and evolution and of emphasizing the nature of science. The effects of this approach on student
creationist or evolutionist attitudes were compared with the effects of two other sections of the same course that were taught
by different instructors during the same academic quarter. The modified approach produced more attitude change than the other
approaches. It included some material whose use has been discouraged by science educators, including discussion of creation
myths and use of an intelligent design–oriented book as a foil to a mainstream book on evolution in seminar discussions.
This twenty-fifth anniversary edition of the first longitudinal study of a Depression cohort presents data on 167 individuals born in 1920–21 from their elementary school days in Oakland, California through the 1960s. Using a combined historical, social, and psychological approach, the author assesses the influence of the economic crisis on the life course of these Californians over two generations. This edition of the classic study includes a new chapter by the author which explores how World War II and the Korean War changed the lives of the Depression youth and a younger birth cohort (1928–29). The chapter also reviews the project's contributions to theory and method in the study of lives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)