1. Introduction
While there are specific measures for the cognition, affect, and behavior of religious persons, this paper explores the centrality of religious meanings in personality. Specifically, the researchers looked into the religious construct-system of selected youth in the Philippines and how religion influences their subjective experience and behavior. Youth religiosity is of special interest to the researchers because it is during the period of adolescence that religion can become an asset for positive development (
Good et al. 2011). As a mediator, religion can provide the youth with different contexts for identity formation.
Hardy and King (
2019) explain that as an ideological context, it provides the youth with a belief system upon which they can ground their identity. As a social context, religion presents the youth with opportunities to practice living their beliefs, and to observe others doing so as well (i.e., “spiritual mentors”). As a spiritual context, religion offers the youth experiences of spiritual transcendence—that is, connection to something beyond themselves, such as divinity and their religious community (p. 247).
Baring et al. (
2018) assert the religiosity/spirituality is a probable factor for psychosocial adjustment among the young. Higher levels of religiosity/spirituality contribute to more satisfying relationships, more academic success, greater well-being, and greater civic engagement (p. 172).
Additionally, this study was initiated and completed while the world is mired in a global pandemic. The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is still a new and inadequately understood upper respiratory infectious disease, with a rate of mortality that is high enough to have killed over 500,000 people to date globally (
Baker et al. 2020, para. 1). Aside from being a virulent disease, COVID-19 also strained the religious beliefs and practices of people.
Baker et al. (
2020) note that demand for religious ritual, comfort, and support is presumably increased by the pandemic, while simultaneously the available supply of religion is drastically decreased. Hence, a measure of the centrality of religion will benefit researchers interested in the efficacy of religion to people coping with a major life stressor. More importantly, the data garnered from the instrument can shed light on the practicality of religion among young believers who are caught in the maelstrom of a largescale health crisis.
1.1. The Philippines and the Filipino Youth
The Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country. A critical survey of the Christianization of the Philippines shows that the Catholic Church grew from the personal religion of the indigenous people. Before the arrival of the Spanish Catholic missionaries on the Philippine archipelago, the indigenous people already had a worldview and religion of their own. Despite numerous challenges on evangelization, the Catholic missionaries succeeded. The Catholic Church thrived in the Philippines and became the dominant religion (
del Castillo 2018). In one of his messages to Filipino Catholics,
John (
1981) said that the Philippine nation is deserving of particular honor since, from the beginning of its Christianization, from the moment that Magellan planted the Cross in Cebu [province] on 15 April 1521, all through the centuries, its people have remained true to the Christian faith. In an achievement that remains unparalleled in history, the message of Christ took root in the hearts of the people within a very brief period, and the Church was thus strongly implanted in this nation of seven thousand islands and numerous tribal and ethnic communities (para. 2).
Out of 101 million Filipinos, there are around 80 million who profess the Catholic faith (
Philippine Statistics Authority 2017).
Macaraan (
2019) observes that the Filipinos’ sociocultural normative and lifeworld is deeply imbued with Catholic cosmologies and expressions. Birth until death and significant life moments in between are associated with important Catholic rites and rituals, particularly sacraments (p. 106).
Since a quarter of the Philippine population is composed of the youth, it is a fertile ground for research on religion and the young. Although there is no state religion, most Filipinos are religious (
Philippines: Society and Culture 2011). The Filipino youth, as stipulated in Republic Act 8044, refers to people whose ages range from fifteen (15) to thirty (30) years old (
Youth in Nation Building Act 1995). From the total population in the Philippines, there are 15.9 million Filipino youth who are 15 to 22 years of age and almost 13.6 million who are 23 to 30 years old (
Arceo 2018, p. 1). The median age in the Philippines was 24.3 years old (
Philippine Statistics Authority 2017).
1.2. Religious Diversity in the Philippines
The dominance of the Catholic religion in the Philippines, however, does not equate to a lack of religious diversity. Various religious groups and denominations are actively present in the religious sphere, namely “Christian Churches, Evangelical, Church of Christ, and Philippine Independent Church. Also, roughly five percent of the population is Muslim” (
Philippines: Society and Culture 2011, p. 4). Chinese Buddhism, although a minority religion, also thrives in the country. As of 2011, there are 37 Chinese Buddhist temples and seven Chinese Buddhist Schools in the Philippines (
Dy 2012). There is also a temple in Manila (capital of the Philippines) that serves as a religious center for Hindus (
Hutter 2012).
The presence of different religions and the freedom of people to navigate the religious space show that religion in the Philippines is not a monolithic entity.
Macasaet (
2009) observes that there are Catholic youths who, after encountering the communal and highly experiential modes of spirituality among charismatic Christian Churches, have chosen to convert. Indeed, “charismatic movements and evangelical churches have become noteworthy as religious spaces for finding personal meaning” (
Sapitula and Cornelio 2014, p. 2). Acknowledging the reality of religious syncretism,
Dy (
2012) reports that, “in this predominantly Catholic country, most of those who practice popular Buddhism are also baptized Catholics who may go to [a Catholic] church regularly” (p. 246). However, due to the dominance of the Catholic Church in the country,
Hutter (
2012) also notes that “while there is no direct interference on the religious level, the dominant Christian culture (including schools run by Christian organizations) leaves its impact on Sindhis by converting some of them to Christianity, thus decreasing the number of Hindu Sindhis as a result” (p. 363)
Recognizing the religious diversity in the Philippines, this study operationalizes the term religion to refer to human acts that involve beliefs, practices, and rituals related to the transcendent, where the transcendent is God, Allah, HaShem, or a Higher Power in Western religious traditions, or to Brahman, manifestations of Brahman, Buddha, Dao, or ultimate truth/reality in Eastern traditions. This often involves the mystical or supernatural. Religions usually have specific beliefs about life after death and rules about conduct within a social group. Religion is a multidimensional construct that includes beliefs, behaviors, rituals, and ceremonies that may be held or practiced in private or public settings but are in some way derived from established traditions that developed over time within a community. Religion is also an organized system of beliefs, practices, and symbols designed (a) to facilitate closeness to the transcendent and (b) to foster an understanding of one’s relationship and responsibility to others in living together in a community. (
Koenig 2012, pp. 2–3)
Although the majority of Filipinos are affiliated with the Catholic Church, there is a need to veer away from sweeping generalizations and declare that the Philippines is a Catholic country, as well as primarily describe Filipinos using Catholic constructs. The portrayal of Filipinos who believe in a transcendent or ultimate truth/reality can be nuanced through a measuring instrument that significantly contributes to data collection in studies that take the spirituality/religiosity variable into account (
Esperandio et al. 2019). More importantly, such a psychological measure should be interreligious in scope.
1.3. Researchers on Religiosity in the Philippines
Local scholarship on religion and the Filipino youth point to robust descriptions of the religious orientations of the young (
Baring 2018). However, empirical studies such as the National Filipino Catholic Youth Study 2014 (
CBCP-ECY and CEAP 2014) only formed baseline data for population profile regarding religion rather than investigate the underlying dimensions that characterize respondents’ notions of religion (
Baring et al. 2018). Indeed, checking the religious affiliation and attendance at religious activities is not enough. It is necessary to evaluate the extent to which religiosity occupies a central place in the life of the individual (
Esperandio et al. 2019). This echoes the assertion of
Huber (
2007) that only if the religious construct-system is situated in a central position that religious beliefs can be powerful enough to influence subjective experience and behavior.
To address the knowledge gap on the salience of religion among Filipino youth, the researchers explored in this paper the degree of religiosity of selected young Filipinos and the relevance of religious beliefs in their daily life. Since there is no culturally adapted scale to measure the centrality of religion among the Filipino youth, the researchers communicated with the author of the scale who permitted the use of the 20-item interreligious Centrality of Religiosity Scale or CRSi-20.
Huber and Huber (
2012) describe the Centrality of Religiosity Scale as:
A measure of the centrality, importance, or salience of religious meanings in personality. It has been developed by Huber and has yet been applied in more than 100 studies in sociology of religion, psychology of religion, and religious studies in 25 countries with a total of more than 100,000 participants. The largest single application is in the global Religion Monitor with representative samples in 21 countries.
(p. 711)
While there are different versions of the CRS in 20 languages with norm values for 21 countries (
Huber and Huber 2012), the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRSi-20) has not been validated in the Philippine milieu and utilized to illuminate the salience of religion in the personality of the Filipino youth. By validating the CSR, the researchers can ascertain that the measure does not carry delimiting objectives or contexts that are very specific to its design and development. Additionally, the CRSi-20 will allow the researchers to answer the following questions: (1) What CRSi version is valid in the Philippine context? (2) What is the position of the religious construct-system among selected Filipino youth? and (3) How does the centrality of religion influence the selected Filipino youths’ subjective experience and behavior?
4. Results
Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alpha were calculated for the three versions and subscales of the Centrality of Religiosity Interreligious as shown in
Table 2. The results of CRSi-20 show that the Centrality of Religiosity has a mean score of 3.78 and a standard deviation of 0.75. It has a skewness measure of −0.89, which implies that it is slightly skewed. The kurtosis value of 0.52 indicates that the distribution is leptokurtic (i.e., more peaked than the normal distribution and has fatter tails). It has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95 which indicates good internal consistency, while the results of CRSi-14 show that the Centrality of Religiosity has a mean score and standard deviation of 3.79 and 0.73 respectively. Skewness measure of –0.86 suggests that it is slightly skewed, while the kurtosis of 0.56 indicates that the distribution is leptokurtic. Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 indicates good internal consistency. Lastly, the results of CRSi-7 showed the Centrality of Religiosity has a mean score of 3.65 and a standard deviation of 0.70. Skewness measure of −0.57 implies that it is also slightly skewed, while the kurtosis of 0.33 indicates that it is also leptokurtic. In the three versions of CRSi, the skewness measures of ideology are −1.64, −1.47, and −1.87 respectively. While private practice has skewness measures of −1.14, −1.15, and −0.72. They imply that the scores for the subscales are concentrated on the higher values and that the distribution is moderately skewed. Kurtosis measures of ideology (Ku
20 = 3, Ku
14 = 2.18, and Ku
7 = 2.99) indicate that the distributions are more peaked than the normal distributions with fatter tails. For private practice, the kurtosis measures in CRSi 20 (Ku = 0.9) and CRSi 14 (Ku = 0.95) showed that the distribution is leptokurtic, while in CRSi 7 (Ku = −0.018) the distribution is less peaked than the normal distribution with lighter tails. We also tested for multivariate normality of CRSi-7, CRSi-14, and CRSi-20 using Mardia’s test (
Mardia 1970). Results indicate that, in all CRSi versions, there are violations in the assumption of multivariate normality for both multivariate skewness (
) and multivariate kurtosis (
). To address such, all CFA analyses were bootstrapped to 1000 samples. (
Yung and Bentler 1996). Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82 denotes internal consistency.
Since the goal of this study is to validate the three versions of the Interreligious Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRSi), the researchers tested seven CRSi measurement models using confirmatory factor analysis, specifically the Maximum Likelihood algorithm. Hereon, these models will be identified as follows: Model 1 is the single-factor CRSi-7, Model 2 is the single-factor CRSi-14, Model 3 is CRSi-14 with five factors, Model 4 is CRSi-14 with five factors and one higher-order factor, Model 5 is a single-factor CRSi-20, Model 6 is CRSi-20 with five factors, and Model 7 is CRSi-20 with five factors and one higher-order factor.
Table 3 shows a summary of the fit indices for all seven models. The fit of these models is evaluated using a set of criteria in terms of fit indices. A model with a good fit is expected to be indicated by a non-significant chi-square, RMSEA, and SRMR < 0.08, and GFI, CFI, and TLI > 0.90 (
Hair et al. 2014). As expected, all chi-square values are statistically significant due to the large sample size. Considering the rest of the indices, it seems that, even after covarying the four pairs of residuals, the data still does not fit Model 1 (single-factor CSRi-7) well enough.
Among the seven models, CRSi-14 Models 3 and 4, as well as CRSi-20 Models 6 and 7, all show a good fit. Specifically, Model 3 (RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93) is slightly better than Model 4 (RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91). CRSi-20 Models 6 and 7 (RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.07, GFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93) are identical in fit. Given the listed goodness of fit indices both these models are supported with identical fit measures, we decided to defer to the simpler Model 6.
Table 4 shows the factor loadings for Model 3. It should be noted that two pairs of residuals were covaried in the model. Residuals for Items 10 and 8, of the private practice factor, were covaried (
= 0.60,
z = 10.11,
p < 0.001). The same was done for Items 18 and 19, of the factor, experience, (
= 0.19,
z = 6.74,
p < 0.001). Items 8 and 10 pertain to individuals’ frequency and value for meditation, respectively. On the other hand, Item 18 pertains to the frequency of feeling a sense of unison with everything, while Item 19 pertains to the frequency of feeling touched by divine power. All the items have loaded significantly in the different subscales. As for internal consistency within the factors in this model, private practice is acceptable (
α = 0.78), while experience excellent (
α = 0.90).
The CFA results showed that all the items have loaded significantly in their hypothesized factor (p < 0.001). This indicates that these items seem to be related to the underlying dimensions they are supposed to measure.
The factor loading of items that comprise CRSi-20 is found in
Table 5. Similar to the previous model, these items are structured into five factors. For this specific model, four pairs of residuals were covaried. Similar to the five-factor CRSi-14, residuals of Items 10 and 8 (
= 0.54,
z = 9.73,
p < 0.001), as well as Items 18 and 19 (
= 0.16,
z = 6.54,
p < 0.001) were covaried. In addition, Items 12 and 15 of the factor, intellectual (
), and Items 9 and 5 of private practice (
) were also covaried. All the items have loaded significantly in the different subscales. As shown in
Table 2, all subscales show acceptable reliability ranging from 0.76 to 0.93.
The correlation results between the subscales of CRSi-20 are shown in
Table 6. The intellect is significant positively related to ideology (
), public practice (
), private practice (
), and religious experience (
). Ideology is significant positively related to public practice (
), private practice (
), and religious experience (
). Public practice is significant positively related to private practice (
), and religious experience (
). Lastly, private practice is significant positively related to religious experience (
).
The correlation results between the subscales of CRSi-14 are shown in
Table 7. The intellect is significant positively related to ideology (
), public practice (
), private practice (
), and religious experience (
). Ideology is significant positively related to public practice (
), private practice (
), and religious experience (
). Public practice is significant positively related to private practice (
), and religious experience (
). Lastly, private practice is significant positively related to religious experience (
).
5. Discussion
The religiosity profile of the participants based on the results of CRSi-20 revealed that the majority of the participants were religious (N = 263 or 51.17%), others were highly religious (N = 232 or 45.13%) and a minority are not religious (N = 19 or 3.70%).
The initial confirmatory factor analyses of these models indicated poor fit. However, upon examining the modification indices, systematic variations in the residuals were identified and covaried. Considering that the current study intends to compare several models, it was decided that the covariation of residual be done for all plausible models. Hence, it can be argued that specific models are empirically superior to the others and do not simply show good fit because they are only the models for which residuals were covaried for.
A model with a good fit is expected to be indicated by a non-significant chi-square, RMSEA, and SRMR < 0.08, and GFI, CFI, and TLI > 0.90 (
Hair et al. 2014). Among the seven models, CRSi-14 Models 3 and 4, as well as CRSi-20 Models 6 and 7, all show a good fit. Specifically, Model 3 (RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93) is slightly better than Model 4 (RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91). CRSi-20 Models 6 and 7 (RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.07, GFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93) are identical in fit. Given that both these models are supported with identical fit measures, we decided to defer to the simpler Model 6.
Among the seven models that were tested, two models showed acceptable goodness of fit indices, namely, CRSi-14 Model 3 and CRSi-20 Model 6. Results of CFA for the five-factor CRSi-14 and five-factor CRSi-20 showed that all items are significant at 0.001 when tested on their hypothesized factors. It showed that the items are related to the factors that they are supposed to measure. All subscales show acceptable reliability ranging from 0.76 to 0.93.
To check the bivariate correlation of the CRSi subscales in all of its versions, Pearson r correlations were ran, which consistently showed that all factors of CRSi are positively correlated. The coefficients suggest these factors are associated with each other but can still be discriminated from one another. High knowledge of religion is related to high religious beliefs, public participation in religious rituals, devotion to religious activities/rituals in private spaces, and religious experiences/feelings, while low knowledge of religion is related to low religious beliefs, public participation in religious rituals, devotion to religious activities/rituals in private spaces, and religious experiences/feelings or vice versa. High religious belief is related to high public participation in religious rituals, devotion to religious activities/rituals in private spaces, and religious experiences/feelings, while low religious belief is related to low public participation in religious rituals, devotion to religious activities/rituals in private spaces, and religious experiences/feelings or vice versa. High public participation in religious rituals is related to high devotion to religious activities/rituals in private spaces, and religious experiences/feelings, while low public participation in religious rituals is related to low devotion to religious activities/rituals in private spaces, and religious experiences/feelings. High devotion to religious activities/rituals in private spaces is related to high religious experiences/feelings, while low devotion to religious activities/rituals in private spaces is related to low religious experiences/feelings or vice versa. The results established the convergent validity among the subscales.
6. Conclusions
The study validated the three versions of the CRSi by using samples from selected Filipino youth from the Philippines. The results showed that CRSi-14 Models 3 and 4, as well as CRSi-20 Models 6 and 7, show a good fit. Despite CRSi-20 Models 6 and 7 being identical in fit, the researchers defer to the CRSi-20 Model 6 (five factors) since it is a simpler model. In consonance with the findings of
Demmrich (
2020), the CRSi-20 is also a valid and reliable measure for the centrality of religiosity in the Philippines and support the usefulness of the CRS among Filipino youth. The RMSEA (which estimates how well the model matrix is adapted to the population matrix) showed that CRSi-20 (Models 6 and 7) with identical values of 0.07 demonstrated a fair fit. One possible explanation might be that the selected sample (Filipino youth) is a small number of the total Filipino population. Admittedly, this was a limitation of the study. Further studies might consider using larger samples.
Another contribution of the study is to illuminate (albeit to a limited extent) how religion influences the behavior and personality of selected Filipino youth who are struggling with a major life stressor like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dein et al. (
2020) observe that:
The pandemic has affected religious practice in significant ways, including the cancellation of live religious services, closing religious schools, canceling pilgrimages, and prohibiting group interactions during festivals and celebrations. A Pew Research report in March 2020 describes a change in peoples’ religious habits during the pandemic. Over 50% of respondents stated that they had prayed for an end to the spread of coronavirus, attended religious services in person less frequently, and watched religious services online or on TV instead of in-person. Collective worship has become difficult, online worship is increasing while private worship/prayer appears to have been considerably on the increase.
(pp. 3–5)
Lee and Kuang (
2020) recommended that studies be conducted to explore the linkage of the CRS and mental health. Reflecting on the call of
Baker et al. (
2020) to investigate how conditions of change and uncertainty, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, relate to private religious beliefs and practices, the researchers assert that based on the high mean scores on ideology (M = 4.34) (SD = 0.74) among selected Filipino youth, their views on the actuality and substance of a transcendent truth remained steadfast while navigating the unchartered waters of COVID-19. The results also support the assertion of
Dein et al. (
2020) that religious beliefs could offer comfort in relation to COVID-19.
Baker et al. (
2020) observed that the pandemic changed religion by the suspension of in-person religious gatherings, and the corresponding need to engage in ‘socially distanced’ forms of interactive religious services and rituals. The researchers see this phenomenon as one of the possible causes for the low mean scores of the selected Filipino youth on the CSRi-20 public practice dimension (M = 3.53, SD = 0.94).
On the role of prayer, spirituality, and other religious practices play in coping with COVID-19 (
Dein et al. 2020;
del Castillo 2020;
del Castillo and del Castillo 2020), the researchers assert that private prayer is an important coping mechanism among selected Filipino youth as evidenced by the CSRi-20 private practice dimension scores (M = 3.93) (SD = 0.89). Most Filipino youth devote themselves to the transcendence in individualized activities and rituals in private space. This aligns with the findings of
del Castillo and Alino (
2020) that the majority of Filipino youth communicate with God through personal prayers, especially during trying times.