Back to Table of Contents

 

 

 

CHAPTER 7a

 RESULTS

 Introduction

The purpose of this study is to explore the concept of critical worldview integration by looking into a variety of relationships between two areas of worldview belief (religious worldview and epistemological worldview) and several psychological domains (intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, satisfaction with life and vitality among several samples of college students (freshman / sophomores and graduate).  This chapter will discuss the results of the data collected in this study. 

 

Samples and Populations

Before any analysis of data can begin, it is necessary to analyze the samples and the population to which results may be generalized.  This study essentially uses three populations.  The first population is freshman and sophomore students at an evangelical institution in California.  This population was sampled using four sections of a required class (426 questionnaires distributed) that included approximately 25 percent of the entire population (1,659 students).  Of this sample, approximately 64 percent responded, yielding significant data that allows generalization to that population.  The second population consists of students in that same institution’s M.A. Christian Education and M.A. Philosophy and Ethics programs (136 students).  Here, 80 questionnaires were distributed with 65 percent responding.  This also becomes a sample that may be reasonably generalized to the population of graduate students in these two programs.

However, the third and final population does not exhibit this same integrity.  Because the sampling required the use of blind e-mail solicitations to obtain participants for this third sample, little is known about the true population.  While the data does indicate that the participants were current freshmen, sophomore and graduate students at California institutions, it does not indicate what caused certain students to respond while others did not.  All that is known for certain is that they have e-mail addresses and access to a computer.  It is also likely that most watch videos and have an account with Blockbuster™ - although several indicated that they did not want the coupon.  Additionally, about a third of those who began the questionnaire failed to complete it, with many quitting shortly after or before the Religious World View Scale.  As a result, one might wonder if a certain religious segment tended to drop out at this point.  In short, the population lacks definition and results certainly cannot be generalized to a population of college students in California.  While it would have been nice to have access to a better defined population, this was a luxury that this study was not afforded.  In addition, this study likely underscores the problems involved in doing independent research on multiple campuses and bolsters the notion of cooperative multi-campus, multi-author research in the future.  This may serve as a warning to students planning dissertation research.

As a result, the data analysis will focus first on the more generalizable evangelical data and then more tangentially discuss the e-mail invitation or combined data.  Due to the obvious exploratory nature of this study, this later data may be helpful within such an exploratory study, but must be treated appropriately.  In addition, due to the homogeneous nature of the evangelical data, many issues dealing with differences in Religious World View Scale scores and many of the family upbringing and personal belief questions will not arise until we include and analyze this less anchored e-mail or combined sample.  While the analysis of this data may be interesting, it truly provides little other than suggestions for future research.

 

Data Organization

The discussion of this study’s findings will be organized in the following manner:  First, a descriptive analysis of the data collection results is provided.  Second, the descriptive results of the demographic information are discussed.  Third, this chapter will review the differences resulting from a) sample source (evangelical school versus e-mail invitation); b) gender; c) year-in-school (freshman and sophomores versus graduate students); and d) age (18 to 23 years versus 24 years and up).  Fourth, the significant mean differences and correlations relating to the Religious World View Scale (RWVS) scores will be examined.  Fifth, any major or unusual correlations discovered between the various scales and their sub-categories will be discussed.  The sixth section will specifically examine the important mean differences discovered among the Family Upbringing and Personal Belief Questions.  This turned out to be more interesting and informational than anticipated.  Finally, the chapter will conclude with a quick summary.

Each variable is generally analyzed based upon scores received from four different instrument groupings.  The first is the Religious World View Scale.  Note that the participant scores on the Religious World View Scale will be treated as both categorical and interval.  When participant scores are divided into five increasing religious worldview categories for purposes of analyzing mean differences, these scores will be used as categorical data.  However, for purposes of analyzing correlations between Religious World View Scale (RWVS) scores and other measures, they will be treated as interval data, thereby allowing for such analysis.  The second group consists of the Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS).  Note that each of these scales has a secondary score (SVS2 and SWLS2) that each include one additional question added by the author.  SVS2 adds the question “I am energized by a sense of awe and wonder” (Item 72).  SWLS2 adds the question “I look forward to learning new things each day” (Item 73).  The third group consists of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI) and its five sub-categories.  There is no total or cumulative score for the EBI.  The final group consists of the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) and its seven sub-categories.  There is also no total or cumulative score for the AMS.  Table 7.1 lists each instrument group and its sub-categories in the order in which they are typically reported in the upcoming tables.

 

Null Hypotheses

Finally, the original null hypotheses and the results are listed below.  Note that many of these hypotheses are quite open ended and the different possibilities raised by each will be discussed within the appropriate section.

 

  

Table 7.1.

 Instruments and Sub-Categories

 

Grouping

Instrument

Sub-Categories

RWV

Religious Worldview Scale

None

SVS & SWLS

Subjective Vitality Scale

Subjective Vitality

 

 

Subjective Vitality 2

 

Satisfaction with Life Scale

Satisfaction with Life

 

 

Satisfaction with Life 2

EBI

Epistemic Beliefs Inventory

Simple Knowledge

 

 

Certain Knowledge

 

 

Omniscient Authority

 

 

Quick Learning

 

 

Fixed Ability

AMS

Academic Motivation Scale

Intrinsic – Knowledge

 

 

Intrinsic – Accomplish / Create

 

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

 

 

Extrinsic – Identified

 

 

Extrinsic – Introjected

 

 

Extrinsic – External Regulated

 

 

Amotivation

 

 

Effects of Gender:  (See Tables 7.9 and 7.10)

 

            H0 1.1:             There is no significant difference between gender in any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory or the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 1.2:             There is no significant difference between gender on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 1.3:             There is no significant difference between gender on religious worldview scores.  (Retained).

 

Effect of family religious upbringing: (See Tables 7.28 through 7.32)

             H0 1.4:             There is no difference between those students with parents who placed a strong emphasis on religious beliefs and those with parents who did not regarding any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory or the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 1.5  :           There is no difference between those students with parents who placed a strong emphasis on religious beliefs and those with parents who did not on their scores on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 1.6:             There is no difference between those students with parents who placed a strong emphasis on religious beliefs and those with parents who did not regarding their religious worldview scores.  (Rejected).

 

Effect of seeking independent answers: (See Tables 7.33 through 7.36)

             H0 1.7:             There is no difference between those students who have indicated that they have grappled with investigating their own religious beliefs independent of their parents and those who have not regarding any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory or the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 1.8:             There is no difference between those students who have indicated that they have grappled with investigating their own religious beliefs independent of their parents and those who have not regarding their scores on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 1.9:             There is no difference between those students who have indicated that they have grappled with investigating their own religious beliefs independent of their parents and those who have not regarding their religious worldview scores.  (Rejected).

 

Effect of educational level: (See Tables 7.11 and 7.12)

 

            H0 2.1:             There is no difference between lower level students and upper level students regarding any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory or the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 2.2:             There is no difference between lower level students and upper level students regarding their scores on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale.  (Retained).

             H0 2.3:             There is no difference between lower level students and upper level students regarding their religious worldview scores.  (Rejected for the evangelical sample and retained for the combined sample).

 

Religious Worldview (See Tables 7.17 through 7.25)

             H0 3.1  :           There is no significant difference between those falling in different religious worldview categories regarding any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory or the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale.  (Rejected – See Tables 7.20 through 7.25).

             H0 3.2  :           There is no significant difference between those falling in different religious worldview categories regarding their scores on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale.  (Rejected– See Tables 7.17 through 7.19).

 

 Miscellaneous Correlations (See Tables 7.26 and 7.27)

             H0 4.1:             There are no significant correlations between any of the measured factors on the Academic Motivation Scale and one’s score on the Religious World View Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 4.2:             There is no significant correlation between any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory and one’s score on the Religious World View Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 4.3:             There is no significant correlation between scores on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale and one’s score on the Religious World View Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 4.4:             There is no significant correlation between any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory and the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 4.5:             There is no significant correlation between any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory and one’s scores on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale.  (Rejected).

             H0 4.6:             There is no significant correlation between any of the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale and one’s score on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale.  (Rejected).

 

Response Rate and Useable Data

At the evangelical Christian institution, a total of 506 questionnaires were distributed among both undergraduate students and a total of 324 were completed, including 26 pencil and paper questionnaires and 298 that were taken online.  At the time that final data was collected, online statistics showed that 47 additional persons started the questionnaire online, but never finished.  Any online questionnaires that were not completed (which required all questions to be answered) were discarded.  In addition, to the 26 mentioned above, two persons turned in pencil and paper questionnaires that did not answer all questions.  That data was also discarded.  Finally, these completed responses also included 26 juniors and two seniors.  These responses were also not included within the data analysis, leaving a total of 296 evangelical participants.  The total response rate including all completed questionnaires was 64%.  Table 7.2 shows these statistics in more detail and accounts for differences in the undergraduate and graduate data.

 

Table 7.2.

 Data Collection Statistics (Evangelical)

 

Sample

#

Distributed

# Returned

%

Online

Paper

Total

Total Used

Returned

Undergraduate 1

426

247

25

  272  1

  244

  63.8%  1

Graduate

80

51

1

    52

    52

  65.0%

 

MA Phil

60

31

1

    32

    32

  53.3%

 

MA C.E.

20

20

0

    20

    20

100.0%

Total

506

298

26

   324

  296

  64.0%  1

1  Includes unused Junior and Senior responses.

 

 

 

For the participants who were invited by e-mail solicitation, the results were quite different and cannot be compared easily.  Here, it was claimed by the e-mail list provider that an anticipated response rate would be around 2 to 3%.  Two separate invitations went out to 5,000 random e-mail addresses each.  See Table 7.3.  The initial invitation resulted in 187 completed questionnaires for a 3.74% response rate.  Of these responses, only those for freshmen/sophomores (60) and graduate (101) were used.  It is also interesting to note that 276 started the survey, thereby leaving 89 who failed to complete it.  Apparently, some became tired, discouraged, or pragmatically decided that it was not worth a free Blockbuster rental coupon.  In addition, this campaign resulted in a disproportionate number of graduate students who participated (101). 

 

Table 7.3.

 Data Collection Statistics (E-mail Campaign)

 

Sample

1st Campaign

(5000 emails)

2nd Campaign

(5000 emails)

Total Completed Responses

Freshmen / Sophomore

60

55

115

Graduate

101

0

102

Total

161

55

216

 

 

When the second campaign was launched, it was limited to only those between the ages of 18 and 22 and used an e-mail list that the list provider insisted would be filtered to include only current freshmen and sophomore students within that age group.  In addition, the questionnaire was modified to reject responses from those who did not answer that they were current freshmen or sophomores.  This campaign yielded another 55 completed freshmen and sophomore responses (only a 1.1% response rate), however there were approximately 50 respondents who opened the survey but were turned away due to not being either current freshmen or sophomores.  This would leave the researcher to believe that the list provider was not as accurate in its e-mail targeting as it claimed.

 

Demographic Information

About 60 percent of the combined participants were female.  For the evangelical undergraduates the figure increased to 67 percent female, while the evangelical graduate sample dropped to only 23 percent female.  See Table 7.4.  It was interesting to note that nearly an equal number of males and females commenced taking the online questionnaire; however males had a higher attrition rate.  This was true regardless of whether undergraduate or graduate males.  The median age was within expectations with a greater range exhibited by the evangelical sample.  Within the disclosed field of study, there were no Engineering students in the evangelical sample and few Philosophy students among the e-mail participants.  Yet, it must be remembered that the graduate evangelical sample specifically targeted graduate Philosophy and Christian Education students.  Otherwise, there was little difference in field of study.  See Table 7.5.

  

Table 7.4.

 Data Collection Statistics (Gender and Median Age)

 

Sample

N

Male

% Male

Female

% Female

Median Age

Evangelical Total

296

120

40.5%

176

59.5%

20.5

 

Undergraduate

244

80

32.8%

164

67.2%

19.0

 

Graduate

52

40

76.9%

12

33.1%

27.3

E-Mail Participants

216

91

42.1%

125

57.9%

22.2

 

Undergraduate

115

43

37.4%

72

62.6%

19.2

 

Graduate

101

48

47.5%

53

52.5%

25.6

Total

512

211

41.2%

301

58.8%

21.2

  

Table 7.5.

 Data Collection Statistics (Major Field of Study)

 

Major

Evangelical

E-Mail Participant

Total

Total %

Natural Sciences

17

18

35

6.7%

Engineering

0

15

15

2.9%

Philosophy

31

2

33

6.4%

Religion or Theology

24

7

31

6.0%

Social Sciences  (Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology)

35

19

54

10.5%

Education

35

23

58

11.3%

Arts (Music / Drama / Art)

23

14

37

7.2%

Humanities (English, History)

21

7

28

5.5%

Business

26

22

48

9.4%

Other (Medical / Computers, etc)

56

65

121

23.6%

Undecided

28

45

73

14.3%

Totals

296

216

512

100.0%

 

 The samples differed dramatically when it came to Religious Affiliation.  As expected, the entire evangelical sample chose a Christian affiliation.  However, there was more diversity among the e-mail participants.  See Table 7.6.  Still, even among that sample, Christians were in the majority (111 of 216).  Since the sample seemed to follow social demographics, there were few Muslims or Buddhists.  In addition, the “Other” category included a mix of Wiccan, Gaia, Spiritualist, “my creation”, LDS, Catholics, and possibly confused Christians (Pentecostal, 7th Day Adventist, and Protestant).  While it would have been nice to have a larger number of non-Christian participants, most were at least represented.  In addition, a comparison of claimed Religious Affiliation with the corresponding score on the RWVS shows expected associations.  See Table 7.7.  Among those who selected “Other,” the low scores were Wiccan, Gaia and one “Cathloic” (sic), while the higher were LDS.  All in all, this may also point out that some claimed “Christian” affiliations include themselves by tradition or name only.

 

Table 7.6.

 Data Collection Statistics (Claimed Religious Affiliation)

 

Major

Evangelical

E-Mail Participant

Total

Total %

Undecided / Seeker

0

11

11

2.15%

Atheist / No Affiliation

0

23

23

4.50%

Buddhist / Hindu / Shinto

0

8

8

1.56%

Christian

296

111

407

79.49%

Jewish

0

13

13

2.54%

Muslim / Islam

0

6

6

1.17%

Other

0

44

44

8.59%

Totals

296

216

512

 

 

 

Table 7.7.

 

Religious Affiliation by RWV Category – Combined Sample

 

 

Religious Worldview Scale Categories

25 to 50

51 to 75

75to 100

101 to 125

125to 150

Undecided / Seeker

0

4

5

2

0

Atheist / No Affiliation

8

12

3

0

0

Buddhist / Hindu / Shinto

1

0

7

0

0

Christian

0

9

27

85

286

Jewish

0

10

2

1

0

Muslim / Islam

0

5

0

1

0

Other

3

7

18

16

0

Male

7

22

30

33

119

Female

5

25

32

72

167

Totals

12

47

62

105

286

n = 512

 

 

Sample Source Differences

It quickly became apparent how very different the evangelical sample was from those who responded through the e-mail invitation.  Significant differences between the two samples arose in nearly every category.  See Table 7.8.  This would suggest that by combining the data from the two sources, the resulting sample would exhibit less difference than if the two samples were compared independently.  Here, and throughout these results, t tests for independent samples were used unless extreme differences in variation were noted.  In such cases a Welch t test for two samples assuming unequal variance was used and the same is noted within the p value. 

 

Table 7.8.

 St tests:   Sample source 

 

 

Evangelical

(n = 296)

E-mail Invite

(n = 216)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Religious Worldview

132.314

9.709

97.347

30.237

18.629

.000**^

.4049

Subjective Vitality

31.608

5.810

28.745

7.086

5.015

.000**

.0470

Subjective Vitality 2

37.027

6.594

33.491

8.146

5.422

.000**

.0545

Satisfaction w/ Life

24.078

6.087

20.532

7.583

5.862

.000**

.0631

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.730

6.427

26.167

8.373

5.446

.000**

.0550

Simple Knowledge

21.818

3.825

21.491

3.760

0.962

.337

 

Certain Knowledge

23.324

4.671

28.755

4.642

-13.026

.000**

.2496

Omniscient Authority

12.791

2.965

13.815

3.416

-3.619

.000**

.0250

Quick Learning

19.108

4.268

18.833

3.851

0.749

.454

 

Fixed Ability

21.176

4.521

19.421

4.715

4.258

.000**

.0343

Intrinsic - Knowledge

15.520

2.877

15.005

3.638

1.790

.074

 

Intrinsic - Accomp

12.686

3.573

13.218

4.210

-1.542

.124

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

10.959

3.694

11.944

4.076

-2.851

.005**

.0157

Extrinsic – Identified

15.659

2.721

15.009

4.043

2.171

.030*

.0092

Extrinsic - Introjected

11.679

4.119

12.708

4.541

-2.674

.008**

.0138

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

12.534

3.740

14.750

4.324

-6.197

.000**

.0700

Amotivation

4.720

1.531

6.106

3.497

-6.074

.000**^

.0675

n = 512     *p<.05   **p<.01

 

^ - Uses t test assuming unequal variance

 

 

        As anticipated, the difference in RWVS scores was dramatic (effect size of .40) although it tells us little other than that the e-mail sample really does include a variety of religious worldviews, unlike the homogeneous evangelical sample.  Thus, the evangelical institution is effective in capturing students with high degrees of religious orthodoxy.  There was a range from 35 to 148 in the e-mail sample scores, while the range was only from 85 to 150 for the evangelical sample.  For the e-mail sample the mean RWV score was 98.6, the median was 97.5.  The mean score for the evangelical students was 132 with a median of 135.  Of more interest is the fact that significant differences arose regarding both Subjective Vitality and Satisfaction with Life with the evangelical sample scoring consistently higher.  While it would be nice to conclude that this result was due to either their religious convictions or the quality of the evangelical institution, such causal conclusions cannot be made.  This could be explained as simply as wondering if people spending their time on computers answering e-mail solicitations or attempting to garner Blockbuster™ coupons simply tend to be less vital or satisfied with their life.

Regarding epistemic beliefs, the evangelical sample scored significantly lower in Certain Knowledge and Omniscient Authority, while scoring higher in Fixed Ability.  Here, the effect sizes were low except for Certain Knowledge which was moderate at .25).  This would suggest that the e-mail sample was likely to treat knowledge as more certain in nature.  This seems to defy my initial intuition.  Whether this result has anything to do with religious worldview will be investigated in the next section.

When it comes to the AMS and motivational issues, there were no significant differences in the Intrinsic sub-categories of Knowledge or Accomplishment.  Although differences arose in Intrinsic – Sensation, Extrinsic – Identified, and Extrinsic – Introjected, the effect sizes in each case were quite small.  On the other hand, the significant differences in Extrinsic – External Regulation and Amotivation were a bit larger (.07 and .065 respectively).  In each case, the evangelical sample scored lower, indicating that they were less susceptible to being amotivated or to being motivated by external coercion.

 

Gender Differences

(Hypotheses H0 1.1 to H0 1.3)

There were no significant differences by gender in the RWVS scores for either the evangelical or the combined (e-mail and evangelical) sample.  Nor were there any differences in Satisfaction with Life.  However, both samples showed some significant differences (small effect sizes) in Subjective Vitality with females scoring higher.  Interestingly, this only became significant for the evangelical sample once the additional item “I am energized by a sense of awe and wonder” was added (Subjective Vitality2).  See Tables 7.9 and 7.10.

Regarding EBI scores, there were significant differences by gender in both samples for the sub-categories Certain Knowledge and Fixed Ability, although effect sizes were also small.  In both cases, females had higher (allegedly less mature) scores. Finally, there were significant differences by gender in both samples among two of the sub-categories for the AMS; Extrinsic – Introjected (higher for females), and Amotivation (lower for females).  An additional significant difference was found in the evangelical sample for Intrinsic – Knowledge (higher for females) and in the combined sample for the sub-categories Intrinsic – Accomplishment and Extrinsic – Identified (both higher for females).  However, again all effect sizes were small with Amotivation showing the highest at .06 in the evangelical sample.

 

Table 7.9.

 t tests:   Gender differences – Evangelical Sample  

 

 

Male Students

(n = 120)

Female Students

(n = 176)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

Effect Size

Religious Worldview

132.558

10.462

132.148

9.187

0.357

0.722

 

Subjective Vitality

30.900

5.712

32.091

5.842

-1.737

0.083

 

Subjective Vitality 2

36.100

6.468

37.659

6.623

-2.007

0.046*

.0136

Satisfaction w/ Life

24.225

6.198

23.977

6.027

0.343

0.732

 

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.867

6.562

29.636

6.351

0.302

0.763

 

Simple Knowledge

21.933

3.627

21.739

3.963

0.429

0.668

 

Certain Knowledge

22.450

4.248

23.920

4.861

-2.687

0.008**

.0240

Omniscient Authority

12.717

3.079

12.841

2.892

-0.353

0.724

 

Quick Learning

18.883

4.023

19.261

4.431

-0.748

0.455

 

Fixed Ability

19.950

4.193

22.011

4.558

-3.945

0.000**

.0502

Intrinsic - Knowledge

15.083

2.687

15.818

2.971

-2.171

0.031*

.0158

Intrinsic – Accomp

12.225

3.397

13.000

3.665

-1.840

0.067

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

10.642

3.784

11.176

3.627

-1.223

0.222

 

Extrinsic – Identified

15.408

2.572

15.830

2.813

-1.309

0.192

 

Extrinsic - Introjected

10.750

4.235

12.313

3.928

-3.256

0.001**

.0348

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

12.192

3.943

12.767

3.587

-1.301

0.194

 

Amotivation

5.092

2.054

4.466

0.962

3.518

0.002**^

.0588

n = 296     *p<.05   **p<.01

 

^ - Uses t test assuming unequal variance

 

 

 

Table 7.10.

t tests:   Gender differences – Combined Sample  

 

Male Students

(n = 211)

Female Students

(n = 301)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

Effect Size

Religious Worldview

116.047

28.878

118.625

25.892

-1.057

.291

 

Subjective Vitality

29.616

6.626

30.950

6.412

-2.285

.022*

.0101

Subjective Vitality 2

34.597

7.545

36.193

7.390

-2.384

.017*

.0110

Satisfaction w/ Life

22.483

7.068

22.651

6.921

-0.268

.789

 

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

28.043

7.721

28.355

7.374

-0.463

.643

 

Simple Knowledge

21.981

3.588

21.468

3.930

1.505

.133

 

Certain Knowledge

25.052

5.361

26.010

5.355

-1.991

.046*

.0077

Omniscient Authority

13.422

3.250

13.083

3.163

1.179

.239

 

Quick Learning

18.806

4.046

19.123

4.131

-0.863

.389

 

Fixed Ability

19.445

4.261

21.130

4.841

-4.067

.000**

.0314

Intrinsic - Knowledge

15.000

3.097

15.515

3.303

-1.781

.075

 

Intrinsic – Accomp

12.497

3.750

13.199

3.915

-2.031

.043*

.0080

Intrinsic – Sensation

11.289

3.884

11.435

3.894

-0.418

.676

 

Extrinsic – Identified

14.900

3.469

15.724

3.235

-2.752

.006**

.0146

Extrinsic - Introjected

11.294

4.417

12.688

4.176

-3.630

.000**

.0252

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

13.194

4.347

13.661

3.985

-1.256

.210

 

Amotivation

5.673

2.938

5.047

2.380

2.659

.008**

.0137

n = 512     *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Based upon the forgoing, null hypothesis H0 1.1 that there is no significant difference between genders in any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory or the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale is rejected.  The null hypothesis (H0 1.2) that there is no significant difference between genders on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale is likewise rejected.  On the other hand, the null hypothesis (H0 1.3) that there is no significant difference between genders on religious worldview scores is retained.

  

Year-in-School Differences

(Hypotheses H0 2.1 to H0 2.3)

A significant difference appeared between the year-in-school and the RWVS scores (graduates scoring higher) in the evangelical sample only (effect size of .05).  This likely suggests only that those with higher RWVS scores elect to continue into graduate programs at the evangelical institution.  Neither sample showed any differences in either Subjective Vitality or Satisfaction with Life.  See Table 7.11 and Table 7.12.

Regarding EBI scores, there were significant differences between the freshman/ sophomores and graduate students for both samples in the sub-category of Simple Knowledge with graduates scoring higher.  The effect size was higher (.05) among the evangelical sample.  The combined sample also showed a significant difference in the sub-category of Fixed Ability, with graduates exhibiting more belief that one’s epistemic ability can be improved over time.  Here, again, the effect size was quite small.  Finally, there were significant differences by gender in both samples among two of the sub-categories for the AMS; Extrinsic – Identified and Extrinsic – Introjected.  Graduates scored lower in each, but effect sizes were also low – the evangelical effect size for Extrinsic – Introjected (motivation by internally generated coercion) was the highest (.05).  An additional significant difference was found in the evangelical sample for the sub-category of Extrinsic – External Regulation (with graduates scoring lower) and for the combined sample in the sub-category Amotivation with graduates scoring higher.  This later result seems a bit surprising.  Again, effect sizes are low.

 

Table 7.11.

 t tests:   Year-in-School differences – Evangelical Sample  

 

 

Fresh / Soph

(n = 244)

Graduate

(n = 52)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

Effect Size

Religious Worldview

131.299

25.992

137.077

29.625

-3.994

.000**

.0515

Subjective Vitality

31.492

5.980

32.154

4.948

-0.746

.457

 

Subjective Vitality 2

36.873

6.794

37.750

5.562

-0.870

.385

 

Satisfaction w/ Life

23.889

6.280

24.962

5.049

-1.154

.250

 

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.504

6.664

30.788

5.096

-1.310

.191

 

Simple Knowledge

21.398

3.725

23.788

3.701

-4.207

.000**

.0568

Certain Knowledge

23.541

4.661

22.308

4.630

1.734

.084

 

Omniscient Authority

12.820

2.952

12.654

3.048

0.366

.715

 

Quick Learning

18.889

4.409

20.135

3.378

-1.919

.056

 

Fixed Ability

21.311

4.456

20.538

4.812

1.120

.264

 

Intrinsic –Knowledge

15.533

2.964

15.462

2.453

0.162

.872

 

Intrinsic – Accomp

12.861

3.547

11.865

3.614

1.831

.068

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

10.930

3.665

11.096

3.862

-0.293

.769

 

Extrinsic – Identified

15.807

2.671

14.962

2.869

2.046

.042*

.0140

Extrinsic – Introjected

12.193

4.044

9.519

3.801

4.286

.000**

.0588

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

12.877

3.682

10.923

3.618

3.485

.000**

.0397

Amotivation

4.717

1.563

4.731

1.388

-0.058

.954

 

n = 296      *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Table 7.12.

 t tests:   Year-in-School differences – Combined Sample  

 

 

Fresh / Soph

(n = 359)

Graduate

(n = 153)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

Effect Size

Religious Worldview

118.788

25.992

114.686

29.625

1.566

.118

 

Subjective Vitality

30.351

6.536

30.516

6.528

-0.262

.793

 

Subjective Vitality 2

35.462

7.496

35.706

7.493

-0.336

.737

 

Satisfaction w/ Life

22.610

6.821

22.516

7.347

0.139

.890

 

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

28.245

7.335

28.183

7.939

0.086

.932

 

Simple Knowledge

21.443

3.702

22.235

3.970

-2.169

.030*

.0091

Certain Knowledge

25.423

5.380

26.065

5.346

-1.238

.216

 

Omniscient Authority

13.131

3.196

13.438

3.209

-0.994

.321

 

Quick Learning

18.877

4.224

19.261

3.775

-0.971

.332

 

Fixed Ability

20.861

4.455

19.438

5.048

3.176

.002**

.0194

Intrinsic - Knowledge

15.370

3.182

15.144

3.333

0.727

.467

 

Intrinsic - Accomp

13.008

3.798

12.680

4.003

0.882

.378

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

11.256

3.749

11.654

4.192

-1.059

.290

 

Extrinsic – Identified

15.635

3.268

14.797

3.491

2.601

.009**

.0131

Extrinsic - Introjected

12.390

4.265

11.464

4.416

2.225

.027*

.0096

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

13.571

4.062

13.229

4.323

0.856

.392

 

Amotivation

5.072

2.179

5.850

3.437

-3.075

.010**^

.0314

n = 512      *p<.05   **p<.01

 

^ - Uses t test assuming unequal variance

 

 

      Based upon the forgoing, the null hypothesis (H0 2.1) that there is no difference between lower level students and upper level students regarding any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory or the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale is rejected.  The null hypothesis (H0 2.2) that there is no difference between lower level students and upper level students regarding their scores on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale is retained.  On the other hand, the null hypothesis (H0 2.3) that there is no difference between lower level students and upper level students regarding their religious worldview scores is retained as to the combined sample, but rejected as to the evangelical sample.

Age Differences

When it came to differences between ages (18 to 23 versus 24 and older), the differences appeared mainly within the evangelical sample.  Here, a significant difference appeared between age and the RWVS scores (older students scoring higher) in the evangelical sample only (effect size of .04).  Here, again, this likely results from the fact that the graduate students are older and that graduate students who elect to continue their graduate studies at an evangelical institution have higher RWVS scores.  Neither sample showed any differences in either Subjective Vitality or Satisfaction with Life based upon age.  See Tables 7.13 and 7.14.

The evangelical sample exhibited significant differences based on age between the EBI sub-categories of Simple Knowledge and Quick Learning with the older students scoring higher in both.  This matches what was found with graduate students, but both point to allegedly less mature epistemic positions.  However effect sizes for each were low.  In addition, significant differences based upon age were found among the evangelical students in three sub-categories for the AMS; Intrinsic – Accomplishment, Extrinsic – Introjected, and Extrinsic – External Regulation.  In each case, the older students scored lower.  While it would make sense that older students would be less coercively extrinsic in their motivation, it seems strange that one’s motivation for accomplishment or creation might go down as one ages.  However, once again effect sizes were extremely low.  Also, it is interesting to note that the only significant difference for the combined sample was for the sub-category of Extrinsic – Introjected with a minimal effect size.

 

Table 7.13.

 t tests:   Age differences  – Evangelical Sample  

 

 

18 to 23 years

(n = 246)

24 and up

(n = 50)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

Effect Size

Religious Worldview

131.419

10.017

136.720

6.481

-3.590

.000**^

.0420

Subjective Vitality

31.520

5.811

32.040

5.841

-0.576

.565

 

Subjective Vitality 2

36.898

6.673

37.660

6.219

-0.744

.457

 

Satisfaction w/ Life

23.862

6.277

25.140

4.969

-1.356

.176

 

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.480

6.617

30.960

5.284

-1.488

.138

 

Simple Knowledge

21.528

3.876

23.240

3.236

-2.921

.004**

.0282

Certain Knowledge

23.553

4.686

22.200

4.477

1.875

.062

 

Omniscient Authority

12.776

2.970

12.860

2.969

-0.181

.856

 

Quick Learning

18.858

4.369

20.340

3.514

-2.254

.025*

.0170

Fixed Ability

21.301

4.423

20.560

4.978

1.056

.292

 

Intrinsic - Knowledge

15.577

2.949

15.240

2.504

0.755

.451

 

Intrinsic - Accomp

12.874

3.520

11.760

3.723

2.020

.044*

.0137

Intrinsic – Sensation

10.935

3.694

11.080

3.730

-0.253

.801

 

Extrinsic – Identified

15.789

2.655

15.020

2.973

1.828

.069

 

Extrinsic - Introjected

12.053

4.007

9.840

4.206

3.530

.000**

.0407

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

12.902

3.654

10.720

3.659

3.849

.000**

.0480

Amotivation

4.736

1.572

4.640

1.321

0.403

.688

 

n = 296     *p<.05   **p<.01

 

^ - Uses t test assuming unequal variance

 

 

Table 7.14.

 t tests:   Age differences  – Combined Sample  

 

 

18 to 23 years

(n = 388)

24 and up

(n = 124)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Religious Worldview

117.776

26.675

116.895

28.745

0.314

.754

 

Subjective Vitality

30.335

6.551

30.605

6.478

-0.400

.689

 

Subjective Vitality 2

35.420

7.588

35.895

7.185

-0.615

.539

 

Satisfaction w/ Life

22.492

6.982

22.863

6.974

-0.515

.607

 

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

28.113

7.512

28.581

7.536

-0.602

.547

 

Simple Knowledge

21.503

3.817

22.234

3.698

-1.871

.062

 

Certain Knowledge

25.575

5.383

25.742

5.362

-0.301

.763

 

Omniscient Authority

13.155

3.192

13.435

3.229

-0.851

.395

 

Quick Learning

18.820

4.230

19.532

3.605

-1.690

.092

 

Fixed Ability

20.588

4.600

19.960

4.913

1.301

.194

 

Intrinsic - Knowledge

15.348

3.275

15.161

3.080

0.560

.575

 

Intrinsic - Accomp

13.062

3.803

12.435

4.009

1.575

.116

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

11.327

3.819

11.524

4.101

-0.491

.624

 

Extrinsic – Identified

15.505

3.337

15.008

3.397

1.438

.151

 

Extrinsic - Introjected

12.338

4.247

11.411

4.516

2.082

.038*

.0084

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

13.554

4.067

13.202

4.369

0.825

.410

 

Amotivation

5.201

2.435

5.629

3.187

-1.574

.116

 

n = 512      *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Differences in Graduate Majors for Evangelical Sample

One question that was raised in the course of analyzing the evangelical data concerned possible differences between the graduates pursing the Masters of Philosophy and Ethics (MA Phil) degree and those pursuing the Masters of Christian Education degree (MACE).  Here, although the low number of participants (n = 52) may have prevented significant differences from surfacing, there were no observable significant differences between these groups (Table 7.15).  The only two categories that came close to significance were in RWVS scores (where MACE students scored slightly higher) and Intrinsic – Sensation (where MA Phil students scored slightly higher).  Although not reaching levels of significance, it was interesting to note that the MACE students had higher EBI scores on Certain Knowledge and Fixed Ability, while the MA Phil students were higher on Simple Knowledge and Quick Learning.  The MACE students were also higher on SVS and SWLS scores, although none rose to significance.

 

Table 7.15.

 t tests:   Differences between Graduate Majors – Evangelical Sample

 

 

MA Phil Grad Students

(n = 32

MA C.E. Grad Students

(n = 20)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

Effect Size

Religious Worldview

135.938

6.154

138.900

5.004

-1.809

0.076

0.0000

Subjective Vitality

31.625

5.110

33.000

4.679

-0.974

0.335

 

Subjective Vitality 2

37.469

5.891

38.200

5.105

-0.458

0.649

 

Satisfaction w/ Life

24.594

5.303

25.550

4.685

-0.661

0.512

 

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

30.438

5.267

31.350

4.891

-0.624

0.535

 

Simple Knowledge

24.219

3.652

23.100

3.768

1.062

0.293

 

Certain Knowledge

21.750

4.670

23.200

4.538

-1.101

0.276

 

Omniscient Authority

12.688

3.335

12.600

2.604

0.100

0.921

 

Quick Learning

20.688

2.741

19.250

4.128

1.511

0.137

 

Fixed Ability

19.844

5.100

21.650

4.196

-1.327

0.191

 

Intrinsic –Knowledge

15.875

2.136

14.800

2.821

1.559

0.125

 

Intrinsic – Accomp

12.219

3.471

11.300

3.854

0.890

0.378

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

11.875

3.957

9.850

3.438

1.885

0.065

 

Extrinsic – Identified

14.719

2.289

15.350

3.646

-0.769

0.446

 

Extrinsic - Introjected

9.281

3.700

9.900

4.025

-0.567

0.573

 

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

10.469

3.473

11.650

3.815

-1.149

0.256

 

Amotivation

4.563

0.878

5.000

1.947

-1.108

0.273

 

n = 52     *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religious World View Scale Categories

(Hypotheses H0 3.1 to H0 3.2)

As expected, the evangelical sample showed a high RWVS score, enough to be concerned that there might be some ceiling effect.  In addition, the SD for the evangelical sample (9.71) was much lower than the combined sample (30.237).  This is likely a simple correct description of the samples, but it may make it difficult to determine differences within the evangelical sample based upon RWVS groupings.  In fact, while the range of scores found in the combined sample allowed for five categories (25 to 50; 51 to 75, 76 to 100, 101 to 125, and 126 to 150), the evangelical sample was only divided into two categories (85 to 125, and 126 to 150).

Dividing the evangelical sample into two categories caused little problem and differences could be calculated using independent t-tests.  However, an interesting statistical analysis problem arose once the combined sample was divided up into five RWVS score categories.  First, there were extreme differences in the sample size for each category, partly due to the number of high scores from the evangelical sample and partly due to the fact that there were also more Christians than any other religious affiliation in the e-mail sample.  See Table 7.16.  While designating oneself as a Christian in the demographic portion of the questionnaire did not necessarily result in a high RWVS score (for example the lowest score claimed to be Catholic), Christians did typically score significantly higher.  Regardless, there were only 12 scores in the lower category while there were 286 in the upper category. 

 

 

Table 7.16.

 RWS Categories.  

 

Original

RWV Categories

N

New RWV Categories

N

Combined

E-mail Only

E-mail Only

25 to 50

12

12

25 to 64

42

51 to 75

47

47

65 to 89

42

76 to 100

62

60

90 to 108

44

101 to 125

105

47

109 to 128

45

126 to 150

286

50

129 to 150

43

Total

512

216

Total

216

 

In addition, possibly due to this sampling issue, the Levene Statistic for several of the ANOVAs showed that the assumption of equal variance had been violated.  In these cases, both Tukey’s and Games-Howell (a Tukey’s variation designed for use when equal variances cannot be assumed) post hoc tests were performed.  In addition, a Dunnett C post hoc test was often use for further comparison.  In nearly every case, the same items remained significant in all three tests, thereby suggesting that there was little computational error due to the unequal variances.  However, the sheer magnitude of the difference in sample size still causes concern.

To investigate the effect of this sample size difference, two other methods of assigning RWVS subcategories were used.  First, since the e-mail sample (without being combined with the evangelical sample) contained a representative portion of high scores on the RWVS (as well as all of the lower scores), the evangelical sample was removed.  This provided for a more equal n distribution among the categories.  See Table 7.16.  ANOVAs and appropriate post hoc tests were rerun for each of the SVS, SWLS, EBI and AMS sub-categories.  Finally, in an attempt to allow for a nearly equal n distribution, a new set of categories was devised for the e-mail sample as shown in Table 7.16.  Here, although the range of values within each category now differed, the n was nearly constant at 42 to 45 separate scores.  Once again, ANOVAs and appropriate post hoc tests were rerun for each of the SVS, SWLS, EBI and AMS subcategories.  As these tests were rerun, a few of the original RWVS category ANOVAs became insignificant.  However, the vast majority of the analyses paralleled each other, lending support that the original tests were not as impacted as had been originally feared.  The reported analyses for RWVS categories rely upon the e-mail only sample using the original RWVS categories.  Any change or notable deviations that are important in the discussion will be mentioned.

A number of significant differences arose between RWVS scores and both Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS) scores and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) scores.  For the evangelical sample, the higher of the two RWVS categories resulted in higher SVS and SWLS scores, but with low effect sizes.  See Table 7.17.  ANOVAs and resulting post-hoc tests also showed significant differences among the e-mail sample.  See Table 7.18.  Notice that the effect sizes from the e-mail sample were typically larger than those of the evangelical sample.  Additionally, effect sizes for Satisfaction w/ Life 1 and 2 (each .146) were greater that that for Subjective Vitality 1 and 2 (.105 and .107).  Recall that “Subjective Vitality 1” is the original SVS, while “Subjective Vitality 2” is the SVS plus a score on the additional question “I am energized by a sense of awe and wonder.”  Additionally, that “Satisfaction with Life 1” is the original SWLS, while “Satisfaction with Life 2” is the SWLS plus a score on the additional question “I look forward to learning new things each day.”  This suggests that the higher the RWVS score, the higher one’s vitality and satisfaction with life.

 

Table 7.17.

  Significant t tests:   Evangelical Sample (2 – RWVS Categories)  

                        (Subjective Vitality, Satisfaction with Life)

 

 

85 to 125

(n = 60)

126 to 150

(n = 236)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

Effect Size

Subjective Vitality

29.317

6.088

32.191

5.602

-3.486

.000**

.0397

Subjective Vitality 2

34.017

6.981

37.792

6.281

-4.063

.000**

.0532

Satisfaction w/ Life

22.517

6.296

24.475

5.982

-2.240

.026*

.0168

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

27.617

6.603

30.267

6.283

-2.887

.004**

.0276

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.18.

 Anova (One Way):   Analysis of Variance for Religious Worldview Categories and Subjective Vitality and Satisfaction with Life – E-mail Sample

 

Variable and source

Df

SS

MS

F

η2

Subjective Vitality 1

 

 

 

 

 

     Between groups

4

1027.56

256.889

5.549**

.1052

     Within groups

211

9767.44

46.291

 

 

Subjective Vitality 2

 

 

 

 

 

      Between groups

4

1533.67

383.417

6.354**

.1075

      Within groups

211

12732.32

60.343

 

 

Satisfaction with Life 1

 

 

 

 

 

      Between groups

4

1802.56

450.637

9.005**

.1458

      Within groups

211

10559.22

50.044

 

 

Satisfaction with Life 2

 

 

 

 

 

      Between groups

4

2204.22

551.054

9.036**

.1462

      Within groups

211

12867.78

60.985

 

 

  *p < .05    **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

       Yet, the real area of interest seems to be the patterns exhibited within the e-mail sample data, and not the differences.  For all categories, both Subjective Vitality scores reflect that the highest scores were found on the opposite ends of the categories (25 to 50 and 125 to 150) with the lowest score found in the middle category (76 to 100).  In addition, the highest score was always found in the 125 to 150 category.  See Table 7.19.  This curvilinear pattern might suggest that those in the more uncommitted liberal or middle of the road categories did not feel quite as vital.  One might argue that to maximize vitality, one should make a decision to be located on one end of the spectrum or the other – with those scoring highest on the RWVS showing the highest vitality levels.  This same pattern is true for Satisfaction with Life scores with one major exception.  Despite an increase in SWLS scores as RWVS scores lowered from category 76 to 100 to category 51 to 75, the SWLS scores then dramatically drop to their lowest value in the RWVS category 25 to 50.  Here, unlike with vitality, the lowest RWVS scores also have the lowest satisfaction with life scores.  Figure 4 is a line chart of these mean scores and depicts this pattern graphically.  These patterns clearly warrant further investigation.

Within the evangelical sample, there was a significa Knowledge scores increased, while both Certain Knowledge and Omniscient Authority scores decreased.  Effect sizes in each case were low, however Certain Knowledge approached .05.nt difference between RWVS scores in three EBI sub-categories:  Simple Knowledge, Certain Knowledge and Omniscient Authority.  See Table 7.20.  Here, as RWVS scores increased, Simple

 

 

Table 7.19.

 Mean scores:  RWV – E-mail Sample  -  Categories and Vitality, Satisfaction w/ Life  

 

 

SVS 1

SVS 2

SWLS 1

SWLS 2

RWV Category

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

25 to 50

30.33

5.60

  35.75

6.99

13.50*

7.34

  18.83*

8.00

51 to 75

27.72

5.90

  31.57

6.69

20.85

6.19

  26.62

6.87

76 to 100

26.08*

8.09

  30.62*

9.24

18.65

7.80

  23.80

8.56

101 to 125

29.38

6.56

  34.32

7.59

19.74

7.27

  25.43

8.34

126 to 150

31.92

6.36

  37.42

7.08

24.92

6.69

  31.04

7.11

Range of Scores

6 to 42

8 to 49

5 to 35

6 to 42

n = 216       * = lowest score

 

 

Figure 4.         Plot of mean Subjective Vitality and Satisfaction w/ Life scores for each Religious World View Scale category.  (E-mail Sample).

 

 

 

Table 7.20.

 Significant t tests:   Evangelical Sample (2 – RWVS Categories)  

                        (Epistemic Beliefs Inventory)

 

 

85 to 125

(n = 60)

126 to 150

(n = 236)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

Effect Size

Simple Knowledge

20.617

3.542

22.123

3.841

-2.754

.006**

.0251

Certain Knowledge

25.350

4.387

22.809

4.609

3.849

.000**

.0480

Omniscient Authority

13.617

2.946

12.581

2.939

2.437

.015*

.0198

Quick Learning

18.283

3.580

19.318

4.408

-1.682

.094

 

Fixed Ability

20.833

4.731

21.263

4.473

-0.656

.512

 

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One way Anovas for the five categories in the e-mail sample showed significant differences for each EBI sub-category.  Effect sizes ranged between .049 to .119 for all categories except “Quick Learning” – which showed a much higher effect size of .212.  See Table 7.21.  Post hoc tests confirmed significant mean differences between each RWVS category except in “Fixed Ability” where the differences between categories were not significant after performing a Games-Howell test.  General patterns were once again interesting.  See Table 7.22.  The pattern for both Simple Knowledge and Quick Learning is similar to that of SVS, but less pronounced.  Both the lowest and highest categories find knowledge to be more simple and a quick all or none commodity, while the middle category finds knowledge to be more complex and capable of being learned over time (the claimed more mature position).  See Figure 5 for a line chart showing these patterns.

The pattern for Omniscient Authority exhibits EBI scores that decrease as RWVS scores increase.  Thus, interestingly, the higher the RWVS score, the less knowledge is dependent on authority (the claimed more mature position).  This is the opposite of what was expected.  One interesting possibility is that the EBI questions speak about men as authorities and never mention God as a possible authority for either creating or dispensing knowledge.  Thus, those with higher RWVS scores may only consider the authority of man and agree that we certainly cannot rely on man as that authority – a position of humility.

 

Table 7.21.

 Anova (One Way):   Analysis of Variance for Religious Worldview Categories and Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI)

 

Variable and source

df

SS

MS

F

η2

Simple Knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

         Between groups

4

362.70

90.675

7.146**

.1193

            Within groups

216

2677.28

12.689

 

 

Certain Knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

         Between groups

4

516.85

129.212

6.625**

.1116

            Within groups

216

4115.15

19.503

 

 

Omniscient Authority

 

 

 

 

 

         Between groups

4

277.63

69.407

6.564**

.1107

            Within groups

216

2230.96

10.573

 

 

Quick Learning

 

 

 

 

 

         Between groups

4

674.60

168.650

14.158**

.2116

            Within groups

216

7850.93

15.485

 

 

Fixed Ability

 

 

 

 

 

         Between groups

4

231.59

57.897

2.685*

.0484

            Within groups

216

10649.78

21.005

 

 

  *p < .05    **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.22.

 Mean scores:  E-mail Sample - RWV Categories and EBI.  

 

RWV Cat

Simple K

Certain K

Omni Auth

Quick Learn

Fixed Abil

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

25 to 50

23.83

3.38

  28.83

3.22

17.50

3.80

20.00

2.99

17.42*

5.21

51 to 75

23.36

2.74

  31.06

3.41

14.21

3.85

20.28

1.93

19.81

3.22

76 to 100

20.30*

4.06

  27.97

4.26

13.97

3.27

16.05*

5.19

18.12

5.84

101 to 125

20.49

3.53

  29.55

5.05

13.83

3.09

19.23

2.87

20.40

4.67

126 to 150

21.54

3.68

  26.76*

5.00

12.36*

2.56

20.16

2.38

20.18

3.94

Range

12 to 34

15 to 40

8 to 25

5 to 25

7 to 30

n = 216       * = lowest score

 

 

 

Figure 5          Plot of the mean scores for each factor of the Epistemic Belief Inventory for each Religious World View Scale category.       (E-mail Sample).

 

 

Significant differences were also found between RWVS scores in the evangelical sample in three AMS sub-categories.  With Intrinsic – Knowledge (effect size .06), motivation for the intrinsic sake of gaining knowledge increased with increasing RWVS scores.  On the other hand, Extrinsic – External Regulation and Amotivation (each with effect sizes of approximately .03) dropped as RWVS scores increased.  See Table 7.23.

 

 Table 7.23.

 Significant t tests:   Evangelical Sample (2 – RWVS Categories)  

                        AMS Subcategories

 

 

85 to 125

(n = 60)

126 to 150

(n = 236)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

Effect Size

Intrinsic - Knowledge

14.117

3.098

15.877

2.711

-4.359

.000**

.0607

Intrinsic - Accomp

12.050

3.244

12.847

3.640

-1.547

.123

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

10.950

3.548

10.962

3.737

-0.022

.982

 

Extrinsic – Identified

15.817

2.746

15.619

2.719

0.503

.616

 

Extrinsic - Introjected

12.133

4.090

11.564

4.127

0.957

.340

 

Extrinsic – Ext Reg

13.900

3.658

12.186

3.688

3.219

.001**

.0340

Amotivation

5.267

2.154

4.581

1.297

3.146

.002**

.0326

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anovas conducted with the e-mail sample also showed significant differences between RWVS scores and the sub-categories of Intrinsic – Knowledge, Extrinsic – External Regulation, and Amotivation.  While most of the effect sizes ranged around .07 and .08, the effect size for Amotivation was substantially larger at nearly .20.  Unlike the evangelical sample, significant differences were also found in the sub-categories of Intrinsic – Sensation and Extrinsic – Identified.  See Table 7.24.

In the case of Extrinsic – External Regulated, the pattern showed that generally the higher the RWVS score, the lower the AMS sub-category score.  See Table 7.25.  See also Figure 6 for a line chart showing these patterns for the Intrinsic sub-categories and Figure 7 for a line chart showing the patterns for the Extrinsic sub-categories.  Thus, those with lower RWVS scores tend to find themselves more motivated by external coercion, threat or pressure, while those with higher RWVS scores do not.  In the case of Amotivation, the pattern was generally similar to that found for vitality.  Both the highest and lowest RWVS scores were least likely to be amotivated.  Those in the middle category (76 to 100) were significantly more likely to operate under amotivation – without any real purpose for their actions or motivations. 

 

Table 7.24.

 Anova (One Way):   Analysis of Variance for Religious Worldview Categories and Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) – E-mail Sample

 

Variable and source

Df

SS

MS

F

η2

Intrinsic - Knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

            Between groups

4

215.21

53.802

4.317**

.0756

            Within groups

216

2629.79

12.463

 

 

Intrinsic - Accomplish / Create

 

 

 

 

 

            Between groups

4

393.64

9.841

0.551

 

            Within groups

216

3771.41

17.874

 

 

Intrinsic – Sensation

 

 

 

 

 

            Between groups

4

207.01

67.502

4.314**

.0756

            Within groups

216

3301.32

15.646

 

 

Extrinsic - Identified

 

 

 

 

 

            Between groups

4

314.49

78.621

5.185**

.0895

            Within groups

216

3199.50

15.163

 

 

Extrinsic – Introjected

 

 

 

 

 

            Between groups

4

158.77

39.693

1.960

 

            Within groups

216

4273.85

20.255

 

 

Extrinsic - External Regulated

 

 

 

 

 

            Between groups

4

317.03

79.258

4.776**

.0830

            Within groups

216

3501.63

16.595

 

 

Amotivation

 

 

 

 

 

            Between groups

4

516.44

129.111

12.898**

.1965

            Within groups

216

2122.11

10.010

 

 

  *p < .05    **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Table 7.25.

 AMS Mean scores:  RWV Categories and AMS. – E-mail Sample 

 

RWV Category

Intrinsic – Know

Extrinsic – External Reg

Amotivation

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

25 to 50

  17.67

3.39

  16.17

3.53

    5.00*

2.37

51 to 75

  16.21

2.66

  16.77

3.74

    4.87

1.45

76 to 100

  14.15*

3.90

  14.30

4.02

    8.57

4.76

101 to 125

  14.81

3.79

  14.74

3.98

    5.60

2.80

126 to 150

  14.44

3.56

  13.40*

3.82

    5.06

2.29

Range of Scores

4 to 20

4 to 20

4 to 20

* lowest score

 

 

 

Figure 6          Plot of the mean scores for the Intrinsic Motivation factors of the Academic Motivation Scale for each Religious World View Scale category.  (E-mail Sample).

 

 

 

Figure 7          Plot of the mean scores for the Extrinsic Motivation and Amotivation factors of the Academic Motivation Scale for each Religious World View Scale category.  (E-mail Sample).

 

 

 

 

This same pattern was found for the sub-category Intrinsic – Knowledge, although not as pronounced.  Here, those with RWVS scores in the low category were more likely to be motivated by an intrinsic desire to simply acquire knowledge, while those in the middle and high categories exhibited lower levels. This suggests that while those with low RWVS scores tend to be more motivated by coercion, they also tend to be more motivated by a simple quest for knowledge.  Due to difficulties in generalizing beyond the evangelical population, this certain warrants further investigation.  It was interesting to note that these patterns became even more pronounced when running the same ANOVA and post hoc tests on the combined sample rather than just the e-mail sample.

Based upon the forgoing, the null hypothesis (H0 3.1) that there is no significant difference between those falling in different religious worldview categories regarding any of the five measured dimensions on the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory or the seven types of motivation found on the Academic Motivation Scale is rejected.  Likewise, the null hypothesis (H0 3.2) that there is no significant difference between those falling in different religious worldview categories regarding their scores on either the Satisfaction with Life Scale or the Subjective Vitality Scale is also rejected.

 

 

Copyright 2005 Mark E. Henze - BBuilders.org