Back to Table of Contents

 

 

 

CHAPTER 7b

 RESULTS

Correlations among Scale Scores

(Hypotheses H0 4.1 to H0 4.6)

It would be expected that these previously described differences be mirrored by the measured correlations.  These correlations (each performed using both the evangelical sample and the combined sample data) are shown on two matrices (Table 7.26 for the evangelical sample and Table 7.27 for the combined sample). 

However, another statistical analysis issue raises its head at this point.  As one can easily see, each of the matrices involve performing a total of 105 different correlations giving rise to likely family step-wise error caused by the sheer number of multiple correlations.  While post hoc tests for the ANOVAs take this into account, the same is not true for simple Pearson-r correlations.  In an effort to avoid such error, a Bonferroni adjusted p-value is used, increasing the level required for significance from .05 to p < .00048 (0.05/105) and from .01 to p < .000095 (0.01/105).  Despite this change, the significance levels of many of the correlations proved quite robust and many remained significant even at this level.  Since this is a very conservative adjustment, Tables 7.26 also indicates those correlations that would be significant at the p < .001 level.

Using the evangelical sample (Table 7.26), significant but small positive correlations were found between RWVS scores and both SVS (.17) and SWLS (.19, at the lower p < .001 level).  With regard to EBI scores, significant correlations were found for Simple Knowledge (.20) and Certain Knowledge (-.25).  This matches what was observed within the mean differences in these areas.  This would suggest that as RWVS scores increase, both scores on vitality and satisfaction with life would also increase.  In addition, as RWVS scores increase, one’s belief that knowledge is simple rather than complex would increase while their belief that knowledge is certain would decrease.  This matches much of which is shown in the correlations with the combined sample. 

With the combined sample (Table 7.27), the positive correlations between RWVS scores and SVS (.34), SWLS (.27) and Certain Knowledge (-.45) become even more pronounced.  However, the correlation with Simple Knowledge seems to disappear while two other correlations with EBI sub-categories begin to appear.  A positive correlation with Fixed Ability (.19) and a negative correlation with Omniscient Authority (-.26) now become significant.  This is interesting given that the most significant mean differences between RWVS scores and EBI sub-category scores for this sample would suggest the existence of additional correlations for both Simple Knowledge (which did appear for the evangelical sample) and Quick Learning.  One might recall that these were the two sub-categories that exhibited a curved pattern where the middle differed from both extremes.  The scattergrams for these sub-categories (and for SVS and SVS 2) also suggest the existence of such a curvilinear relationship.

Table 7.26

Correlations  (Evangelical Sample)

 

Measure

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

Religious Worldview

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Satisfaction w/ Life

.19~

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

Subjective Vitality

.17*

.52 ^

--

 

 

 

 

 

4

Epistemology

Simple Knowledge

.20~

-.05

-.08

--

 

 

 

 

5

Epistemology

Certain Knowledge

-.25^

-.08

.01

.12

--

 

 

 

6

Epistemology

Omniscient Authority

-.13

-.09

-.03

-.08

.15

--

 

 

7

Epistemology

Quick Learning

.11

.04

.00

.42 ^

-.11

.29 ^

--

 

8

Epistemology

Fixed Ability

.05

-.01

.10

.15

.00

-.04

.32 ^

--

9

Motivation – Intrinsic

Knowledge

.27 ^

.03

.18~

.17 ~

-.15

-.06

-.05

.01

10

Motivation – Intrinsic

Accomplish / Create

.11

.12

.21 *

-.03

-.09

-.10

-.05

.01

11

Motivation – Intrinsic

Sensation

.01

-.03

.05

.07

-.08

.01

-.11

-.04

12

Motivation – Extrinsic

Identified

-.01

.02

.10

-.12

.06

.06

-.06

.00

13

Motivation – Extrinsic

Introjected

-.08

.02

.05

-.22 *

.04

-.08

-.19 ~

.00

14

Motivation - Extrinsic

External Regulation

-.22*

.00

.00

-.20 ~

.20~

-.03

-.08

.01

15

Motivation - Amotivation

-.32^

-.13

-.24^

-.07

-.02

.15

-.21 *

-.11

 

 


Note:  N = 296,   ~ P < .001, two tailed    * p<.00048, two tailed.    ^ p.000095, two tailed

 

Correlations among the evangelical sample between RWVS and AMS scores likewise showed the expected significant yet moderate and negative correlation with both Extrinsic – External Regulation (-.22) and Amotivation (-.32).  This tends to support the findings based upon mean differences.  An additional significant positive correlation was found between RWVS scores and Intrinsic – Knowledge (.27).  Among the combined sample, significant negative correlations are also discovered among External – Extrinsic Regulation (-.30) and Amotivation (-.23).  Additionally, Amotivation is another place where the curved mean difference pattern was noted.  Thus, both high and low RWVS scores showed significantly lower Amotivation scores than those in the middle of the RWVS scores.  This would also suggest that the Amotivation correlation is curvilinear.  Again, a review of its scattergram suggests that this is indeed the case. 

Yet, despite these similarities between the two samples, with the combined sample the correlation with Intrinsic – Knowledge disappears, but is replaced by a significant negative correlation with Intrinsic – Sensation (-.20).  The reason behind this change is not intuitive.  Is it possible that the evangelical sample is much more motivated by an intrinsic desire for knowledge?  Yet, there was no significant difference (15.5 evangelical: 15.0 e-mail) between the mean Intrinsic – Knowledge scores for these two samples.  It may simply mean that those with lower RWVS scores who enrolled in the evangelical institution tend to be those who are not attending based upon an

Table 7.27

Correlations (Combined Sample)

 

Measure

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

Religious Worldview

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Satisfaction w/ Life

.27 ^

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

Subjective Vitality

.34 ^

.62 ^

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

Epistemology

Simple Knowledge

.02

-.09

-.08

--

 

 

 

 

5

Epistemology

Certain Knowledge

-.45 ^

-.21^

-.12

-.01

--

 

 

 

6

Epistemology

Omniscient Authority

-.26^

-.24^

-.08

.08

.29 ^

--

 

 

7

Epistemology

Quick Learning

.06

.01

.06

.44 ^

.05

-.07

--

 

8

Epistemology

Fixed Ability

.19 ^

.02

.11

.17 *

.02

.05

.44 ^

--

9

Motivation – Intrinsic

Knowledge

-.02

.09

.17 ^

.19 ^

-.09

-.03

.00

-.03

10

Motivation – Intrinsic

Accomplish / Create

-.03

.17 *

.17 ^

-.01

.00

-.10

-.09

-.08

11

Motivation – Intrinsic

Sensation

-.20 ^

.10

.03

.08

.04

.02

-.14

-.13

12

Motivation – Extrinsic

Identified

-.03

.16 *

.12

-.01

.03

-.06

-.01

.02

13

Motivation – Extrinsic

Introjected

-.07

.06

-.01

-.22 ^

.04

-.12

-.22^

-.10

14

Motivation - Extrinsic

External Regulation

-.30 ^

.02

-.04

-.14

.24 ^

-.02

-.10

-.08

15

Motivation - Amotivation

-.23 ^

.15

-.23 ^

-.23 ^

.03

-.01

-.36 ^

-.26^


Note:  N = 512,       * p<.00048, two tailed.          ^ p.000095, two tailed

intrinsic desire for knowledge, while those with lower RWVS scores at other institutions are just as likely to be motivated by such an intrinsic desire.  On the other hand, there was a significant difference between the mean scores in Intrinsic – Sensation among the evangelical (10.96) and the e-mail (11.94) sample.  Additionally, within the e-mail sample, Intrinsic – Sensation scores tended to decrease as RWVS scores increased, thereby suggesting that a focus on motivation for sensual purposes may go down as RWVS scores increase to a certain point – a point which the evangelical sample may have already reached.

Finally, hypotheses H0 4.5 and H0 4.6 inquire into correlations between EBI scores and the other scales.  For the evangelical sample, there is no significant correlations between any of the EBI sub-categories and either Subjective Vitality or Satisfaction with Life.  Yet, it is interesting to note that once the e-mail sample is added to create the combined sample, significant correlations are found between Satisfaction with Life and both Certain Knowledge (-.21) and Omniscient Authority (-.24).  No such correlations are found with Subjective Vitality.  This might indicate that the relationship between SWL scores and RWVS scores is integrally intertwined with one’s beliefs on Certain Knowledge and Omniscient Authority.  A multiple regression of these three independent variables as a predictor of SWL showed that RWV is a significant positive factor with an R2 of .12, while Omniscient Authority was a factor with an R2 of .06.  Certain Knowledge showed an R2 of .04, but was insignificant. 

For the evangelical sample, there were significant correlations between the EBI sub-categories of Simple Knowledge and the AMS sub-categories of Intrinsic – Knowledge (.17), Extrinsic – Introjected (-.22) and Extrinsic – External Regulation         (-.20).   There was also a significant positive correlation between Certain Knowledge and External Regulation (.20).  There were also significant negative correlations between Quick Learning and both Extrinsic – Introjected (-.19) and Amotivation (-.21).  The same correlations were found in the combined sample (although the coefficients increased slightly for each), except that there was no significant correlation between Simple Knowledge and Extrinsic – External Regulation, yet there was a negative correlation between Simple Knowledge and Amotivation (-.23).  In addition, there was a negative correlation between Fixed Ability and Amotivation (-.26).  Thus, one who believes that knowledge is more simple than complex, also tends to be less motivated by internally generated coercion.  Increased belief in simple knowledge is also associated with less motivation by external coercion (for the evangelical sample) and less amotivation (for the combined sample).  Additionally, for both samples, one who believes that learning is generally a quick proposition is likely to be less amotivated or motivated by internal coercion, while one who believes that knowledge is more certain is likely to be less motivated by external coercion.  There were no significant correlations between Omniscient Authority and any AMS sub-categories.

Finally, for the evangelical sample, there is only one significant correlation between AMS sub-categories and SVS or SWLS.  Here, Subjective Vitality exhibits a moderate correlation (-.24) with Amotivation.  This might be expected and would suggest that those who are amotivated typically also exhibit lower vitality.  While one might wonder if the same is true with Satisfaction with Life, these correlations do not reach significant levels.  With the combined sample, positive correlations are also found between Intrinsic – Knowledge and vitality (.17) and between Knowledge – Accomplish and both vitality (.17) and satisfaction with life (.17).  A slightly smaller correlation is found between Extrinsic – Identified and satisfaction with life (.16).  Thus, these measures of intrinsic motivation may have some correlation with one’s vitality and satisfaction with life.  This provides further areas for future investigation.

As a summary, based upon the foregoing, all of the null hypotheses (H0 4.1 - H0 4.6) were rejected.  Significant correlations were found between the RWVS scores and the SVS, SWLS, EBI and AMS scores.  Likewise, there appears to be some significant correlations between EBI sub-categories and SVS, SWLS and AMS scores.

 

Personal Upbringing and Belief Questions

(Hypotheses H0 1.4 to H0 1.9)

A number of questions were added at the end of the questionnaire dealing with the participant’s parental upbringing regarding college and religion and some issues concerning personal beliefs.  Each of these questions was to be answered on a Likert scale from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true).  It was hoped that these answers might provide additional richness to the project – and this proved correct.  As will be seen, each of the hypotheses (H0 1.4 to H0 1.9) was rejected, although more interactions appear and deserve consideration that those raised in these six hypotheses.

For this analysis, the answers from both the evangelical and the combined samples were analyzed.  No attempts were made to investigate differences in these answers based upon variables of gender, year in school or age.  In addition, no analyses of correlations were made.  For each analysis, participants were arranged into subgroups based upon their numerical answer to the Likert scale for each of a few selected questions.  The participants are divided into three answer groups: low, middle and high.  Depending upon the frequencies for each answer, this usually consists of low (1 to 2), middle (3 to 5), and high (6 to 7).  However, for some questions, in order to provide a reasonably equal n for each analysis, the group distributions may vary.  For example, in many of the evangelical sample analyses, the distribution is low (1 to 3), middle (4 to 6) and high (7).  Since the middle group is likely to contain the majority of the undecided or disinterested responses and would provide few interesting comparisons, only those falling in the low and high group were compared thus allowing a two sample independent t-test to be performed and eliminated the need for the use of Anova and corresponding post hoc tests. 

T-tests were then used to compare mean differences between the high and low groups with scores on the RWVS, SVS, SWLS, and sub-categories of the EBI and the AMS.  However, note that for many of the questions, the sample size in each of the two sub-groups (low and high) remains unequal, with the smallest often numbering less than 30.  Normally a difference in sample size does not affect a t test severely, however if the variance is also unequal, t tests can provide poor results.  Therefore, whenever the sample size for one of the sub-groups for a question is less than 30, a Welch’s t test assuming unequal variance is performed on the items.  In addition, regardless of the sample size, if the variance between the sub-groups for a particular score is extremely different, a Mann-Whitney U non-parametric test is also performed.  If this is the case, a separate p value for that test will be displayed. Finally, it must be remembered that question 120 was a Yes/No question and here, these two categories were compared.  Note that from this point on, due to the number of questions analyzed, the inherent limitations presented by the very wording of these un-validated and untested questions, problems encountered in the statistical analysis, and the exploratory nature of this analysis, the tables for each of these personal questions will present only those items where statistical significance was recorded.  Tables showing the statistics for all of the variables and factors within each instrument on these questions have been prepared and are available upon request from the author.

 

 

Question 104      At least one (or both) of my parents actively encouraged me to go to college.

 

Here, the only significant differences in the evangelical sample are regarding RWVS scores and Amotivation with effect sizes being small.  Each loses their significance when recalculated using a t test assuming unequal variance.  However, a few significant differences do arise with the combined sample, again with low effect sizes.  See Table 7.28.  Still, it appears that there is something to the idea that there is an association between parents who encourage college and students with higher RWVS scores.  This also suggests that these encouraged students will be motivated (i.e. lower amotivation).  Yet, they may tend to be more motivated by external pressure (from parents??).  This may warrant additional investigation.

 

  

Table 7.28.

 t tests:   Question 104 – Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 23)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 426)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Religious Worldview

99.870

37.040

119.131

26.905

-2.459

   .021*

.0234

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

   .007**

 

Certain Knowledge

28.435

5.375

25.437

5.471

2.603

   .015*

.0145

Omniscient Authority

15.130

5.012

13.150

3.133

1.875

   .050*

.0178

Extrinsic Eternal Reg

10.609

5.220

13.676

4.112

-2.772

   .011*

.0257

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

Using t test for assumption of unequal variances

 

 

 

Question 106      At least one (or both) of my parents have strong religious beliefs.

 

The only significant difference that arose with the evangelical sample was with regard to Extrinsic – External Regulated, with the students of parents with strong religious beliefs showing more motivation by external pressure.  However, the effect size is low.  See Table 7.29.  Once again, the combined sample showed a larger number of significant differences, including differences in RWVS scores (with a larger effect size of .09) and in both vitality and satisfaction with life (effect sizes ranging around .06).  In each case, the students of parents with strong religious beliefs tended to score higher in each.  The two significant differences found in the EBI sub-categories each had low effect sizes.  See Table 7.30.  It would be expected that parents with strong beliefs tend to also raise children with strong beliefs, but do parents with strong religious beliefs tend to have children with more vitality and satisfaction with life?  This might be an interesting question to investigate further.

 

Table 7.29.

 t tests:   Question 106 – Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score 1 to 3

(n = 22)

Score of 7

(n = 229)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

p

ES

Extrinsic – External Reg

10.583

3.887

12.738

3.708

-3.188

.020*

.0413

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

Using t test for assumption of unequal variances

 

 

 

Table 7.30.

 t tests:   Question 106 – Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 55)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 378)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Religious Worldview

97.800

31.814

122.532

7.810

-6.709

.000**

.0946

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

.000**

 

Subjective Vitality

26.600

7.771

31.307

6.110

-5.143

.000**

.0578

Subjective Vitality 2

31.218

9.211

36.545

6.912

-5.098

.000**

.0569

Satisfaction w/ Life

18.618

6.676

23.690

6.695

-5.251

.000**

.0601

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

24.036

7.295

29.386

7.188

-5.147

.000**

.0579

Certain Knowledge

28.109

5.874

25.058

5.251

30964

.000**

.0352

Omniscient Authority

14.436

3.343

12.979

3.133

3.196

.000**

.0232

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 108      At least one (or both) of my parents required that I attend religious services and/or events regularly as a child.

 

As with question 106 above, students of parents who required their child to attend religious services showed a slight propensity to be motivated by external coercion.  This was the only significant difference appearing in the evangelical sample (effect size of .01).  See Table 7.31.  Once again, a lengthy number of significant differences arose within the combined sample.  See Table 7.32.  However, the only one with an effect size worthy of note (.12) was religious worldview.  It would seem reasonable that parents who required their children to attend religious services would raise students with higher RWVS scores.  Apparently, requiring attendance at religious services is not associated with rebellious children who develop a low religious worldview.

 

 

Table 7.31.

 t tests:   Question 108 – Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 36)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 202)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Extrinsic – External Regulated

12.938

4.515

11.762

4.258

2.194

.029*

.0115

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Table 7.32.

 t tests:   Question 108 – Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 80)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 336)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Religious Worldview

99.650

33.966

123.640

23.007

-7.573

.000**

.1217

Subjective Vitality

28.838

7.558

31.396

6.174

-3.183

.002**

.0239

Subjective Vitality 2

33.625

8.916

36.690

6.972

-3.338

.001**

.0262

Satisfaction w/ Life

20.638

7.261

23.655

6.765

-3.534

.000**

.0293

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

26.313

8.009

29.339

7.222

-3.297

.001**

.0256

Certain Knowledge

27.063

5.285

24.908

5.217

3.312

.001**

.0258

Intrinsic - Knowledge

16.225

3.253

15.274

2.998

2.508

.013*

.0150

Intrinsic -Accomplish

13.738

4.218

12.720

3.683

2.157

.032*

.0111

Intrinsic - Sensation

12.688

4.046

11.185

3.826

3.123

.002**

.0230

Extrinsic - Introjected

12.938

4.515

11.762

4.258

2.194

.029*

.0115

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 111      My religious beliefs are quite similar to those of at least one or both of my parents.

 

For those students in the evangelical sample whose religious beliefs closely mirror at least one of their parents, significant differences arise in the EBI sub-category of Certain Knowledge (higher) and the AMS sub-category of Intrinsic – Sensation (lower).  Effect sizes are low for each.  See Table 7.33.  It is also interesting to note that for the first time, there is no significant difference with the AMS sub-category of Extrinsic – External Regulated.

 

Table 7.33.

 t tests:   Question 111 – Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score 1 to 3

(n = 24)

Score of 7

(n = 203)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Certain Knowledge

21.458

4.324

23.685

4.878

-2.138

.025*

.0199

Intrinsic - Sensation

12.542

3.078

10.700

3.655

2.370

.011*

.0244

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

Using t test for assumption of unequal variances

 

 

 For the combined sample, the significant difference in Certain Knowledge is also reflected.  However, more importantly, significant differences also arise in Religious Worldview (effect size of .34) and both vitality and satisfaction with life (effect sizes ranging between .06 and .10).  See Table 7.34.  Here, those who have religious beliefs that mirror one of their parents have significantly higher RWVS scores.  This would suggest that few parents with low religious worldview scores are being mirrored by their children.  It may be that these parents simply do not care or do not attempt to convince their children to copy them.  On the other hand, the significant differences in SVS and SWLS scores suggest that those who do incorporate the religious beliefs of their parents feel more vital and are more satisfied with life than those who do not.  Is this because they greatly respect their parents, because they are then able to get along better with their parents, or because it is mainly those religious worldviews that stimulate vitality and satisfaction with life that tend to be adopted?  This is worthy of further investigation.  Either way, those who do not adopt their parent’s religious worldview are both lower on the RWVS and lower in both vitality and satisfaction with life.  Finally, there is a significant difference in the EBI sub-category of Omniscient Authority with those who do not mirror their parents’ beliefs exhibiting higher scores (effect size of .075).  This is surprising as one would think those mirroring their parents views would look at their parents as authorities and score higher.

 

Table 7.34.

 t tests:   Question 111 – Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 66)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 317)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Religious Worldview

90.030

34.804

128.312

15.577

-8.756    

.000**

.3400

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

.000**

 

Subjective Vitality

27.606

7.032

31.703

5.804

-5.021

.000**

.0621

Subjective Vitality 2

32.258

8.157

37.104

6.597

-5.200

.000**

.0663

Satisfaction w/ Life

18.333

6.855

24.369

6.452

-6.839

.000**

.1093

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

23.667

7.399

30.035

6.997

-6.659

.000**

.1043

Simple Knowledge

22.864

3.882

21.404

3.850

2.798

.005**

.0201

Certain Knowledge

27.682

4.899

24.596

5.186

4.438

.000**

.0492

Omniscient Authority

15.000

4.368

12.640

2.825

5.551

.000**

.0748

Intrinsic - Sensation

12.455

3.676

11.022

3.890

2.747

.006**

.0194

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 112      I have thought about and decided upon my own religious beliefs independent of the beliefs of either of my parents.

 

Here, for a change, we find more significant differences in the evangelical sample than in the combined sample.  While both show significant differences in the EBI sub-category of Simple Knowledge (effect size of about .05 in each), the evangelical sample also shows significant differences in RWVS scores (higher) (effect size of .03) and Extrinsic – External Regulated (lower) (effect size of 0.2).  See Tables 7.35 and 7.36.  Thus, for the evangelical sample, there is a slight increase in RWVS scores for those who have independently thought about their religious convictions.  For both samples, those who have thought independently about their religious belief also believe that knowledge is more simple than complex.  This is normally considered to be the less mature position regarding this factor of personal epistemology.  This would obviously warrant further confirmation and investigation.

 

 

Table 7.35.

 t tests:   Question 112 – Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score 1 to 3

(n = 70)

Score of 7

(n = 147)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Religious Worldview

131.00

9.683

134.40

7.711

-2.790

.006**

.0349

Simple Knowledge

20.54

3.825

22.38

3.854

-3.292

.001**

.0480

Extrinsic – External Regulated

13.40

3.609

12.20

3.661

2.272

.024 *

.0235

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Table 7.36.

 t tests:   Question 112 – Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 82)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 312)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Simple Knowledge

20.037

3.870

22.218

3.795

-4.613

.000**

.0515

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 114      My personal religious beliefs are currently going through either a crisis or important changes.

 

For those students who are currently in crisis or undergoing current change in their religious beliefs, vitality and satisfaction with life appears to decrease.  Significant differences in this area were found for both the evangelical and the combined samples.  See Table 7.37 and Table 7.38.  In the case of the evangelical students, the effect size was a bit higher, approaching .095 for subjective vitality.  Both samples also exhibited significant differences in the AMS sub-categories of Intrinsic – Knowledge and Amotivation.  It is interesting to note that both increased.  Thus those in crisis may at the same time be both more susceptible to falling into amotivation and toward being intrinsically motivated to learn for the sake of simply pursuing knowledge.  It would seem intuitive that the effect size for Intrinsic – Knowledge was a bit lower (between .02 and .03) than for Amotivation (between .05 and .06).  Within the combined sample only, there were also significant differences within the EBI sub-categories of Omniscient Authority (higher) and Quick Learning (lower) – although with low effect sizes. 

 

 

Table 7.37.

 t tests:   Question 114  -  Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 114)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 74)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Subjective Vitality

33.789

4.991

29.973

6.815

4.426

.000**

.0953

Subjective Vitality 2

39.272

5.972

35.338

7.610

3.955

.000**

.0776

Satisfaction w/ Life

25.658

5.598

22.338

6.740

3.663

.000**

.0673

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

31.465

5.819

28.027

7.205

3.599

.000**

.0651

Intrinsic - Knowledge

15.421

3.091

16.297

2.642

-2.008

.046 *

.0212

Amotivation

4.465

1.249

5.230

1.927

3.303

.001**

.0554

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.38.

 t tests:   Question 114  -  Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 222)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 111)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Subjective Vitality

32.207

5.949

28.784

7.269

4.589

.000**

.0600

Subjective Vitality 2

37.559

6.863

33.802

8.376

4.367

.000**

.0545

Satisfaction w/ Life

23.667

7.185

20.928

7.639

3.210

.001**

.0312

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.559

7.606

26.514

8.227

3.351

.001**

.0328

Omniscient Authority

12.896

3.073

13.793

3.568

-2.376

.018 *

.0168

Quick Learning

19.604

3.546

18.117

5.427

2.999

.003**

.0264

Intrinsic - Knowledge

15.189

3.381

16.441

2.856

-3.350

.001**

.0328

Amotivation

4.874

2.050

6.360

3.768

-4.662

.000**

.0616

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Question 115      I have recently considered changing my religious beliefs or affiliation.

 

For those students who admit having recently considered changing religious beliefs or affiliation, significant differences in RWVS, satisfaction with life and amotivation were discovered.  See Tables 7.39 and 7.40.  Those who recently considered change tended to have lower scores in each area except for amotivation, which increased.  The effect sizes were generally low in all areas except amotivation (.06 to .07).  It is interesting to note that vitality also exhibited a significant difference (lower) among the evangelical sample, but not among the combined sample.  An additional significant difference in the combined sample was reflected in higher Certain Knowledge scores among those who recently considered changing their religious beliefs, however the effect size was quite low.

 

Table 7.39.

 t tests:   Question 115  -  Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score of 1

(n = 250)

Score of 5 to 7

(n = 14)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Religious Worldview

132.95

8.550

125.71

14.683

2.943

   .090*

.0320

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

   .058*

 

Subjective Vitality

32.144

5.502

27.929

7.332

2.738

   .050*

.0278

Subjective Vitality 1

37.648

6.191

32.643

8.544

2.880

   .049*

.0307

Satisfaction w/ Life

24.536

5.984

20.214

7.018

2.605

.040*

.0253

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

30.204

6.265

25.714

7.119

2.591

.037*

.0250

Amotivation

4.540

1.232

6.143

2.476

-4.415

.032*

.0692

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

.002**

 

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

Using t test for assumption of unequal variances

 

Table 7.40.

 t tests:   Question 115  -  Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 426)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 20)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Religious Worldview

120.923

26.441

88.100

28.501

5.049

.000**

.0618

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

.000**

 

Satisfaction w/ Life

23.319

6.757

19.000

8.790

2.168

.042*

.0168

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.045

7.259

23.950

9.237

2.432

.025*

.0202

Certain Knowledge

25.357

5.394

28.450

4.347

-3.703

.006**

.0142

Amotivation

4.873

1.961

7.650

5.461

-2.267

.030*

.0627

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

.030*

 

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

Using t test for assumption of unequal variances

 

 

The difference in RWVS scores among the evangelical sample may tell us that those who have recently contemplated change are not as settled or stable in this area of their life and that those who exhibit higher scores do not feel the need to do much further consideration.  This instability or the unsettling nature of such a past need to reconsider their worldview may also be reflected by lower vitality and satisfaction with life scores.  On the other hand, it is questionable why those who have recently considered change would exhibit higher amotivation scores.  Have they decided that the reconsideration was not worthwhile or fruitless – or do they believe that they have found what they are looking for and are now amotivated toward further investigation?  The question is not sufficiently probative to provide clear direction.  This is also an area warranting further investigation, likely using more qualitative methods.

Question 116      I believe that a person’s religious beliefs should be personal and need not be shared with others.

 

While this question led to the largest number of significant differences among the combined sample, it barely left any within the evangelical sample.  See Tables 7.41 and 7.42.  While a significant difference in RWVS scores was found in both, it exhibited a low .02 effect size in the evangelical sample and eventually dropped out when a Welch’s t test for an assumption of unequal variance was used.  In addition, a much larger effect size (.34) was recorded in the combined sample.  Here, the lower score (shared) was associated with the higher RWVS score.  While this difference in RWVS scores is not surprising - as a major tenet of an orthodox Christian worldview is the command to witness to other - this issue seems to be more significantly tied to other measures among the combined sample than within the sample from the evangelical institution. 

  

Table 7.41.

 t tests:   Question 116  -  Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score of 1 to 3

(n = 202)

Score of 7

(n = 16)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Simple Knowledge

22.193

3.986

19.875

3.344

2.263

.017*

.0232

Quick Learning

19.896

4.044

17.500

2.280

2.337

.001**

.0247

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

Using t test for assumption of unequal variances

   

Table 7.42.

 t tests:   Question 116  -  Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 310)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 81)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Religious Worldview

128.603

19.980

88.914

30.386

14.126

.000**

.3390

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

.000**

 

Subjective Vitality

31.829

5.798

28.519

6.751

4.417

.000**

.0427

Subjective Vitality 2

37.271

6.603

33.481

7.644

4.446

.000**

.0484

Satisfaction w/ Life

23.845

6.392

20.864

8.148

3.518

.000**

.0308

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.652

6.750

26.395

8.766

3.619

.000**

.0326

Certain Knowledge

24.026

5.472

28.790

4.113

-7.312

.000**

.1208

Quick Learning

19.655

3.956

17.975

4.525

3.299

.001**

.0272

Fixed Ability

20.971

4.524

18.185

5.206

4.778

.000**

.0554

Intrinsic - Sensation

10.877

3.785

13.506

4.213

-5.433

.000**

.0705

Extrinsic - Introjected

11.484

4.417

13.667

4.068

-4.024

.000**

.0400

Extrinsic Eternal Reg

12.777

4.176

15.346

3.712

-5.039

.000**

.0613

Amotivation

4.539

1.219

6.593

4.292

-7.384

.000**

.1229

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Among the remaining differences, the EBI sub-category of Quick Learning and the AMS sub-category of Amotivation are found in both samples.  Here, Quick Learning goes down as one’s religious beliefs become less shared (more personal).  For the combined sample, Amotivation significantly increases when beliefs are kept personal and not shared.  While Amotivation has an effect size of .12 in the combined sample, the effect sizes for the remaining significant differences are quite low.  Thus, those who believe that religious worldviews should be shared exhibit less amotivation.  Is it possible that those who are amotivated are simply less willing to share their views?  Or does the belief that important religious matters such as this are personal and should not be shared

serve as a de-motivating factor?  In addition, while Simple Knowledge exhibits a significant difference in the evangelical sample (with a low effect size), leading one to believe that those who are more apt to share their views exhibit more belief in the simplicity of knowledge, this disappears in the combined sample where it is replaced by Certain Learning with a larger (.12) effect size.  With this sample, those who believe that religious views should be shared also tend to believe that knowledge is a more uncertain thing, possibly reflecting a certain need for humility in sharing.  This also defies expectations when one thinks of the certainty allegedly insinuated by the stereotypical street preacher.  Still, the sharing of what one believes is “certain” truths in one critical area does not equate to a general epistemic notion that the majority of truths are certain.

 

Question 117      I believe that some objective truth exists that is independent of our environment and culture.

 

It was expected that this question would yield more significant differences among the EBI sub-categories than any other.  However, it only resulted in a significant difference in both samples among the sub-category of Simple Knowledge.  See Tables 7.43 and 7.44.  The effect size was slightly larger for the evangelical sample, but low in both cases.  Despite the small effect sizes, a belief in objective truth, while appearing to be widespread among college students, also appears in the evangelical sample to be minimally associated with beliefs that knowledge is simpler, while less certain and learning ability is less fixed.

 

 

Table 7.43.

 t tests:   Question 117  -  Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score of 1 to 3

(n = 61)

Score of 7

(n = 139)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Simple Knowledge

21.148

3.454

22.942

3.956

-3.067

.002**

.0453

Certain Knowledge

23.541

4.801

22.000

4.536

2.173

.031*

.0233

Fixed Ability

22.525

4.497

21.000

4.695

2.141

.033*

.0226

Extrinsic - Introjected

13.033

3.381

10.432

4.309

4.182

.000**

.0811

Extrinsic – External Regulated

13.508

3.457

11.367

3.742

3.811

.000**

.0683

Amotivation

5.164

2.289

4.439

0.295

3.187

.002**

.0488

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.44.

 t tests:   Question 117  -  Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 56)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 270)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Simple Knowledge

20.911

3.684

22.370

4.025

-2.504

.013*

.0190

Extrinsic - Identified

16.304

3.074

15.307

3.430

2.012

.045*

.0123

Extrinsic - Introjected

13.357

4.043

11.044

4.413

3.619

.000**

.0388

Extrinsic - Eternal Reg

14.554

3.727

12.904

4.299

2.671

.008**

.0215

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In both samples, significant differences were found among the AMS sub-categories of Extrinsic – Introjected and Extrinsic – External Regulated.  While the effect sizes were greater for the evangelical sample, in each case a belief in objective truth was associated with lower extrinsic and coercive forms of motivation.  For the evangelical sample, a belief in objective truth was also associated with lower amotivation.  While it was anticipated that a belief in objective truth would be associate with greater intrinsic motivation for the sake of obtaining knowledge, it is of interest that this did not appear.

 

Question 118      I believe that deep down, all of mankind regardless of the particular environment and culture can agree on the basics of moral conduct.

 

While a belief that moral basics are universal led to several significant differences, most exhibited low effects sizes and there were none that were found in both samples.  See Tables 7.45 and 7.46.  Within the evangelical sample, there was a slight difference in religious worldview, where this belief was associated with a higher RWVS score.  Likewise, this belief was associated with both a lower belief in the certainty of knowledge (effect size of .06) and one’s fixed ability to learn (effect size of .04).  Yet, these differences did not remain within the combined sample.

 

 Table 7.45.

 t tests:   Question 118  -  Evangelical Sample

 

 

Score of 1 to 3

(n = 56)

Score of 7

(n = 93)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Religious Worldview

132.214

11.987

135.290

6.817

-1.998

.048*

.0264

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

.212

 

Certain Knowledge

24.000

4.147

21.441

4.790

3.318

.001**

.0697

Fixed Ability

22.375

4.401

20.312

4.894

2.587

.011*

.0435

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Table 7.46.

 t tests:   Question 118  -  Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 54)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 247)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Extrinsic - Identified

14.463

4.801

15.551

3.016

-2.129

.034*

.0149

Amotivation

6.000

3.767

5.174

2.502

1.986

.048*

.0130

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Question 119      I feel a sense of majesty and wonder when contemplating our natural world that suggests the existence of a good and benevolent creator.

 

One’s answer to this question resulted in no significant differences within the evangelical sample.  This may be a direct result of the homogeneity of the answers within this sample.  However, this changed dramatically when analyzing the combined sample.  Here, nearly all variables showed significance.  See Table 7.47.  Thus, most of the differences were contributed by the addition of the e-mail sample.  Here, a sense of majesty and wonder became associated with a significantly higher RWVS score and exhibited a substantial effect size of .54.  In addition, there was a clearly significant difference (effect sizes ranging from .05 to .08) associated with both the SVS and SWLS scores.  Thus, it seems that a sense of majesty, wonder and a belief in a good and benevolent creator is associated with greater vitality and satisfaction with life. 

 

 

  

Table 7.47.

 t tests:   Question 119  -  Combined Sample

 

 

Score 1 or 2

(n = 46)

Score 6 or 7

(n = 356)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

P

ES

Religious Worldview

70.065

28.593

128.846

15.210

-21.758

.000**

.5420

 

 

 

 

 

MW-=

.000**

 

Subjective Vitality

27.261

7.987

31.643

5.941

-4.508

.000**

.0483

Subjective Vitality 2

31.457

9.702

37.104

6.663

-5.098

.000**

.0610

Satisfaction w/ Life

17.696

8.566

23.610

6.659

-5.470

.000**

.0696

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

22.696

9.359

29.371

7.041

-5.805

.000**

.0777

Certain Knowledge

28.783

4.315

24.542

5.293

5.212

.000**

.0636

Omniscient Authority

14.652

4.710

12.904

3.113

3.348

.001**

.0273

Fixed Ability

18.478

5.098

20.885

4.773

-3.193

.002**

.0249

Intrinsic - Sensation

12.565

4.026

11.256

3.932

2.120

.035 *

.0111

Extrinsic - Eternal Reg

15.022

4.499

12.992

3.979

3.206

.001**

.0251

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet, interestingly, the combined sample also showed differences suggesting that this belief is associated with a belief that knowledge is less certain and dependent upon authority, and that learning ability is more fixed.  Additionally, these differences suggest that such a belief leads to less intrinsic motivation for the sake of sensation and less motivation through external coercion.  No correlation between awe and wonder and intrinsic motivation to obtain the physical sensation created thereby was recorded.  While all of the effect sizes for these associations are minimal, it is clear that this belief has small, yet far reaching, effects into a variety of aspects of life.

 

  

Question 120      I occasionally encounter a feeling of being pursued or being sought after by God.

 

This final question required a yes or no answer.  Here, the answers among the evangelical sample ran yes by a score of 283 to 13.  Yet, for the e-mail sample, it was nearly 50:50.  Despite the extreme conformity of answers in the evangelical sample, a significant difference arose within their scores on satisfaction with life, where being pursued by God is equated with greater satisfaction.  This difference continued in the combined sample with an effect size that remained nearly constant, while adding significant differences in vitality as well.  As one might expect, there was also a significant difference (effect size of .44) between participant’s answers on this question and their RWVS scores.  Those who answered “no” had substantially lower scores.  See Tables 7.48 and 7.49.

 

 

Table 7.48.

 t tests:   Question 120  -  Evangelical Sample

 

 

Yes

(n = 283)

No

(n = 13)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Satisfaction w/ Life

24.307

5.852

19.077

8.817

3.072

.056

.0311

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.965

6.198

24.615

9.115

2.973

.056

.0292

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

Using t test for assumption of unequal variances

 

 

 

 Table 7.49.

 t tests:   Question 120  -  Combined Sample

 

 

Yes

(n = 388)

No

(n = 124)

 

Variables

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

T

P

ES

Religious Worldview

127.720

15.873

85.782

30.484

19.948

.000**

.4383

 

 

 

 

 

MW =

.000**

 

Subjective Vitality

31.098

6.285

28.218

6.812

4.351

.000**

.0358

Subjective Vitality 2

36.454

7.130

32.661

7.876

5.024

.000**

.0472

Satisfaction w/ Life

23.534

6.498

19.605

7.582

5.621

.000**

.0583

Satisfaction w/ Life 2

29.188

7.010

25.218

8.238

5.255

.000**

.0514

Simple Knowledge

21.443

3.781

22.419

3.770

-2.504

.013*

.0121

Certain Knowledge

24.503

5.165

29.097

4.458

-8.901

.000**

.1345

Omniscient Authority

12.977

3.005

13.992

3.653

-3.101

.002**

.0185

Fixed Ability

20.698

4.667

19.613

4.648

2.257

.024*

.0099

Intrinsic -Accomplish

12.693

3.775

13.589

4.055

-2.258

.024*

.0099

Intrinsic - Sensation

11.028

3.824

12.460

3.896

-3.612

.000**

.0249

Extrinsic - Identified

15.165

3.359

16.073

3.259

-2.638

.009**

.0135

Extrinsic - Introjected

11.899

4.186

12.782

4.698

-1.983

.048*

.0077

Extrinsic – Eternal Regulated

12.848

3.885

15.411

4.324

-6.219

.000**

.0705

 *p<.05   **p<.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, significant differences within the combined sample existed among nearly every other variable.  Here, those exhibiting the largest effect sizes were Certain Knowledge (.13) and Extrinsic – External Regulated (.07).  Those who answered “no” were more likely to believe that knowledge is certain and more likely to be susceptible to motivation by coercion (both external – external regulated and internal – introjected).  One might wonder if this feeling of not being pursued by God becomes a sad thing, leaving one with less intrinsic motivation and less vitality and satisfaction with life.

 

Summary

Based upon the foregoing, what has this study discovered?  First, there are significant differences between the students at the California evangelical institution and those randomly responding to the e-mail invitation from a variety of other institutions across California.  The evangelical students are significantly higher in their level of Christian orthodoxy.  They are also higher in their levels of subjective vitality and satisfaction with life.  They also tend to be less amotivated – as well as less motivated by extrinsic pressure, coercion or reward, whether internally or externally generated.  Finally, their epistemic worldview exhibits a stronger belief that knowledge is more simple than complex, less certain than certain, and is less dependent upon the pronouncement of human authority (Table 7.8).  It is also known that the graduate students at the evangelical institution tend to register slightly higher religious worldview scores than their undergraduate counterparts (Table 7.11).

With regard to these differences, gender may play a small role as females tend to believe that knowledge is more certain and they are less amotivated and more motivated by internal pressure, however this is nearly equally true with both samples (Tables 7.9 and 7.10).  It also appears that while there are some differences between the graduates and the beginning undergraduates in both groups (such as generally lower extrinsic motivation scores), these differences are also generally found across both samples (Tables 7.11 and 7.12).  Age differences, as expected, are quite similar to those exhibited by the distinction between one’s year-in-school (Tables 7.13 and 7.14).

 What does seem to make a difference is one’s score on the RWVS.  Those with higher scores seem to exhibit consistently higher scores for satisfaction with life (Tables 7.17 to 7.19).  While this is also true with subjective vitality, the relationship appears to be curvilinear with the higher scores exhibited by both those with high and low RWVS scores (Table 7.19).  Correlation coefficients also seem to confirm this relationship.  Likewise, when it comes to one’s epistemic worldview, there are significant differences between the high RWV scores and those with lower scores.  Correlations are also discovered that mirror these differences and their directions.  Here, we find that higher RWVS scores equate to a lower belief in the certainty of knowledge and a lower view of knowledge as dispensed by human authorities and experts (Tables 7.20 to 7.22).  In addition, the relationship between religious worldview and both Simple Knowledge and Quick Learning appear to be curvilinear (Table 7.22).  Those with the highest and the lowest RWVS scores believe more in the simplicity of knowledge and that learning is typically a now or never proposition.  Those with middle RWVS scores tend to believe more in knowledge’s complexity and in one’s ability to learn slowly given time and effort.

When it comes to motivation, for the evangelical students, the intrinsic motivation based upon knowledge acquisition seems to increase as religious worldview becomes more orthodox (Table 7.23), however once we add the e-mail sample, the scores are higher for those with a low worldview toward religious orthodoxy (Tables 7.24 and 7.25).  Yet, this motivational sub-category also seems to show a curvilinear relationship (Table 7.25).  Also, for the evangelical students only, higher religious orthodoxy seems to lead to less intrinsic motivation based upon physical sensation (Table 7.23).  Finally, while those with higher RWVS scores seem to show less inclination to be motivated by external reward and pressure, both ends of the spectrum show signs of being less amotivated than the middle (Table 7.25).  Here again, a curvilinear relationship seems to appear.  In any event, one’s religious worldview does seem to exhibit a large interaction with a number of the measured factors.  What we do not know is whether these factors tend to result in one accepting a higher religious orthodoxy, or if one’s higher religious worldview results in the appearance of these factors.  It is likely that whatever the interaction, it is more complex and lacks such a simple causal definition.

Finally, while likely less statistically valid, the personal questions answered at the end of the questionnaire shed some light on the matter.  First, as anticipated, those with strongly religious parents tend to exhibit higher RWVS scores.  They also show significantly higher vitality and satisfaction with life scores (Table 7.30).  Furthermore, those who were forced to attend religious services appear to have retained that high religious worldview and do not typically end up adopting lower views.  Nor does the positive correlation with vitality and satisfaction with life change much (Table 7.32).  Those who have adopted their parent’s religious views also retain higher vitality and satisfaction scores while, interestingly, exhibit less belief in both the certainty of knowledge and the idea that authorities are necessarily more knowledgeable (Table 7.34).

Unexpectedly, those who have concerned themselves with independently arriving at their religious views apart from their parents show few differences in epistemic beliefs compared to those who claim they did not (Tables 7.35 and 7.36).  On the other hand, those who admit either currently or recently going through change or having considered change in their religious views seem to exhibit less vitality and satisfaction with life.  They also tend to be more amotivated (Tables 7.37 through 7.40). 

Participants who believe that their religious views should be shared with others and need not be kept personal tended to adopt higher religious orthodoxy, tended to exhibit decreased amotivation and were less certain about knowledge in general.  They also registered significantly higher scores in vitality and satisfaction with life (Table 7.42).  On the other hand, a belief in objective truth or in basic objective morals resulted in little difference in the measured factors.  The main discovery here is that these beliefs tend to lead to less amotivation and coercive forms of extrinsic motivation (Tables 7.43 through 7.46).  Finally, both a sense of awe and wonder in a world created by a benevolent being and a sense of being pursued by God correlated with higher vitality and satisfaction with life.  Participants holding these beliefs also exhibited higher levels of belief in the uncertainty of knowledge and the inability to rely solely on authorities to dispense truth (Tables 7.47 through 7.49).

Some of these findings are exactly as anticipated.  However, other findings were unexpected and even seem to contradict prior research.  Still, as a whole, they lead to some interesting implications that can explain much of what we have seen.  Chapter 8 will attempt to explore some explanations, remind us of some limitations of this study, and provide helpful implications.

 

Copyright 2005 Mark E. Henze - BBuilders.org