independent lab study final

Student ID: 0008589305 PSYC0042

of 43 04 April 2016

BSc Hons Psychology with Counselling

PSYC0042

RESEARCH METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY 2

M01

Coursework Deadline: 4th April 2016

Word Count: 2695

Lab Report Title: The roles of self-reported religious faith and

conscientiousness on paranormal belief.

Course Coordinator: Dr Damian Poulter


of 43 04 April 2016

The roles of self-reported religious faith and conscientiousness on

paranormal belief.

Abstract

Religious faith and paranormal beliefs has been found to share both positive and

negative correlative relationships, potentially due to differences in attitudes of

Western and Eastern faiths towards paranormal ideologies (Shiah et al., 2010).

Previous studies by Aarnio and Lindeman (2007), McCullough et al. (2003) and Wain

(2007), identified personality traits as predictor of emotional stability, which itself has

shown to significantly correlate with both religiosity and beliefs. While

conscientiousness has been found to be a strong predictor of emotional stability,

limited research could be found exploring this specific trait. A within subject,

correlative design was used to test two hypotheses: whether all variables related to

each other overall (2-tail) and if high scores in religiosity and conscientiousness

predicted low scores for beliefs (1-tail). 58 participants were recruited via an online

advertisement submitted through social media sites. Sample group consisted of even

division of religiosity and beliefs, while of Caucasian and female majority. A weak

positive correlation was found with religiosity between conscientiousness and belief

(1-tail), and no other significant correlation was found. Overall, the results provided

ambiguous findings which supported the null of the first hypothesis, however, was

too limited to provide a conclusive interpretation for the second hypothesis.


of 43 04 April 2016

Studies into religious faith and paranormal beliefs have provided an even spread of

evidence for both sides of the argument regarding the significant relationship

between these two ideologies (Aarnio & Lindeman, 2007; Mencken, Bader, & Stark,

2008; Weeks, Weeks, & Daniel, 2008). The common social consensus (Areni &

Chirumbolo, 2006; Wain, 2007; Williams, Francis, & Lewis, 2009) has been that

individuals with high believes in one ideology tended to have similar level of beliefs

reflected in others. A recent study by Clobert and Saroglou (2015) found a strong

positive correlation between participants’ responses to religious faith and paranormal

beliefs questionnaires, whereby as the scores increased for faith so did the scores

for belief. However, findings by Bader (2012) and Williams et al (2009) have

suggested an opposite correlative relationship, with participants’ paranormal belief

scores decreasing as their religious faith scores increased. A proposed explanation

for the conflicted findings was provided by Shiah, Tam, Wu, and Chang (2010),

whose research into Western and Eastern religion suggested significant cultural

factors on paranormal beliefs.

Shiah et al’s (2010) study found that traditional Chinese believers tended to have

higher scores in paranormal belief and was a possible reflection of the natural

integration of beliefs within Chinese religious ideology, while in contrast Christians

tended to have far lower scores and was reflective of malevolent perceptions

attributed to paranormal beliefs by its ideology. Shiah et al.’s findings overall

suggested that levels of paranormal belief would significantly varied across different

religious faith. Studies by Clobert and Saroglou (2015) and Mencken et al. (2008)

found similar belief variations between Western and Eastern religions, however,

these types of studies primarily used Christianity or Catholicism as their baseline


of 43 04 April 2016

comparative model (Bader, 2012; Willard & Norenzayan, 2013; Williams et al, 2009),

which arguable poses a potential Westernised bias for normal religiosity by which

other faiths / beliefs are compared against. Therefore, the results may be reflective

solely of Western-specific ideology such as the culture of individualism, while

excluding the Eastern ideological factors of collective culturalism. However, while the

results may reflect these assumptions in regards to mass ideological factors,

individual ideological factors are still left unanswered by such interpretations (Aarnio

& Lindeman, 2007; Bader, 2012; Willard & Norenzayan, 2013).

Personality has been associated as a factor modifier of individualised behaviour

(Baker & Daper, 2010; Hergovich, 2003; Keinan, 2002), with personality models by

Cattell (1952), Costa and McCrea (2008), and Eysenek (1993) used to identify

specific traits and facets that potentially explains how an individual will cognitively

process and respond to ideological factors (Cattell & Warburton, 1961; Wain, 2007).

Goldberg’s (1999) IPIP-NEO Scale which is based on Costa and McCrea’s five-

factor model (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014), has identified emotional stability

as a strong predictor of how individuals would respond to questions on religiosity and

paranormal beliefs (Aarnio & Lindeman, 2007; McCullough, Tsang, & Brion, 2003).

Emotional stability indicates the degree of control individuals have on their emotions,

with a positive correlation between stability and level of control. Therefore, a person

of high emotional control would assumable be strongly committed to religious

ideologies, while also be sceptical to beliefs that exist outside of their faith

(Linderman & Aarnio, 2006).

Studies by McCullough et al. (2003) and Saroglou (2002) found that high levels of

conscientiousness, a trait associated with altruistic behaviour, predicted both high

emotional stability and high religious faith scores. Furthermore, Simonian (2011)


of 43 04 April 2016

found a similar negative correlation between emotional stability and paranormal

beliefs, which would suggest that high levels of conscientiousness would therefore

follow this correlative pattern. However, during the literature review a dearth of

studies were found that specifically focused on the relationship between

conscientiousness and paranormal beliefs.

Based on this assumption, the current study aimed to investigate the role of

generalised religious faith on paranormal beliefs rather than focus on comparison

between specific religions, as prior studies such by Aarnio and Lindeman (2007),

Baker and Draper (2010), and Bader (2012) have indicated that the latter

methodology tends to lead to higher rates of ambiguous findings. Therefore, a

generalised exploration of the relationship between religious faith and paranormal

beliefs, with inclusion of personality trait measurements, appeared to be the most

ideal route for the current study. Consciousness was deemed an appropriate specific

focus for research exploration due to dearth of evidence on this personality trait in

relation to prior faith and belief studies (McCullough et al., 2003; Saroglou, 2002).

Therefore, the present study focused on two predictions:

Hypothesis 1: As individual factors and combined, Religious Faith and

Conscientiousness would share a significant relationship with Paranormal Belief.

Hypothesis 2: As a reflection of emotional stability, high scores for

Conscientiousness and Religious Faith would be a stronger predictor of low

Paranormal Belief scores.


of 43 04 April 2016

Method

Design

A correlative, within subject design was utilised for the current study, since the focus

of the research was to report and analyses existing perceptions on each topic,

without exposing participants to experimental manipulation. All participants were

exposed to a singular condition, consisting of an online questionnaire measuring

religious faith and conscientiousness as predictor variables and paranormal beliefs

the dependent variable.

Participants

69 individuals voluntarily accessed the questionnaire, of which 11 (15.9%) were

omitted during data analysis due to incompletion of one or more parts of the

questionnaire. The final participant sample consisted of 58 individuals, with an age

range of 18 to 63 (M= 31.1, SD= 12.8) and with a female majority gender ratio

(female = 75.9%; male = 22.4%; non-disclosed = 1.7%). The participant sample was

of a Caucasian majority (79.3%) and included minor representation of Mixed-

Ethnicity (8.6%), Afro-Caribbean (5.2%), Asian (5.2%), and Middle-Eastern (1.7%)

ethnic groups. Majority of respondents were located in the UK & Northern Ireland

(82.8%), while the remaining respondents were either from the EU (1.7%) or

International Regions (15.5%). The group was evenly divided in regards to

paranormal beliefs (Full = 31%; Partial = 34.5%; Non = 22.4%) with a minority being

uncertain (12.1%). The religiosity of the participant sample also appeared evenly

distributed: Christians and Catholics (Western = 32.7%), Buddhists and Spiritualists

(Eastern = 10.3%), Pagans and Other / Non-Disclosed (Alternative faith = 22.4%),

Agnostics and Atheists (Non-Structured = 18.9%), and the Non-Religious (15.5%).


of 43 04 April 2016

Materials

Qualtrics (Smith, Smith, Smith, & Orgill, 2002): online software used to design

questionnaires and surveys for use in correlative and experimental studies.

IPIP-NEO Full (300) Scale (Goldberg, 1999): psychometric measurement based on

the Five Factor Model of personality (Costa & McCrea, 2008). Consisting of 300

items designed with a 5-point Likert response scale (Appendix A). 30 items from the

Conscientiousness subscale was utilised; three items per facet (Self-Efficacy,

Orderliness, Dutifulness, Achievement-Striving, Self-Discipline, Cautiousness) and

consisting of one positive, one ambiguous and one negative / reversed scored

statement.

The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (Plante & Boccaccini,

1997): ten self-reflective statements relating to aspects of religion and faith, designed

with a 4-point Likert response scale (Appendix A). Two items required semantic

alterations to be multi-faith applicable; item 5 had the word “church” replaced with

“place of worship”, and item 7 had the word “God” replaced with “whom I pray to”.

The Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (Tobacyk, 1988): 26-item scale consisting of

statements relating to different aspects of paranormal beliefs, utilising a 3-point Likert

response scale (Appendix A). Four of the five Oblique Factor Subscales (Lawrence,

1997) were used; Psychic Beliefs (PB), Superstition (SS), Witchcraft (WC),

Anomalous Natural Phenomena (ANP). Religious Beliefs was removed because

religiosity was being measured separate to paranormal beliefs; items 1, 8, 15 and 22

were omitted from the final questionnaire.


of 43 04 April 2016

Procedure & Ethical Considerations

Prior to creation of the questionnaire and commencement of data collection, the

study was reviewed and granted ethical approval by the Ethical Committee of the

University of Greenwich.

Recruitment occurred online via social media websites Facebook, Twitter and

Tumblr, as well business websites Linkedin and Google+. Participants accessed a

website link provided within an online advertisement that directed them to the

questionnaire, that was accessible for a three-week period betweem February 16th

and March 5th 2016. A IP code tracker limited individuals from completing the

questionnaire multiple times. Participants completed the questionnaire at their own

leisure and they had a total length of one week to complete the questionnaire once

started.

Qualitrics was programmed to the present the questionnaire in a set format

[Appendix A]. Q1 provided general information on the study and included a clickable

yes / no response regarding consent to participation, while Q2 allowed participants to

create their own 4-digit study code, for purpose of for identification if they wished to

omit their data at any time. To prevent participation fatigue / rehearsal effects, items

within Q4, Q5 and Q7 were programmed to be presented in randomised orders,

although the questions themselves appeared in the same order to ensure

participants experienced the same condition. Q9 provided the debrief form, which

disclosed full detail of the study and included contact details for the researchers and

external support groups, which participants could contact if any queries or negative

effects occurred during participants’ involvement with the study.


of 43 04 April 2016

After the three-weeks timespan, the web-link became inactive and data was

downloaded in Excel format for pre-analysis checks (Appendix B). Incomplete data

sets were removed and the final collected data was uploaded to SPSS ver22.0

(Appendix C – K). All pre-analysis checks and data analysis occurred on Avery Hill

Campus.

Results [382]

Table 1: Scale statistics per psychometric measurement post data correction.

Scales Mean Std. Deviation N

Religious Faith (RF) 21.4 8.74 10

Conscientiousness (PC) 106 14.7 38

Paranormal Beliefs (RPBS) 40.9 10.9 22

A reliability analysis was conducted individually on each psychometric scale, which

identified overall 11 incomplete data sets (Appendix C). Analysis conducted after

data correction (Appendix D; Table 1) confirmed all three scales to be of high internal

consistency with Cronbach’s Alpha values ≥.70 (RF= .96, PC= .87, RPBS= .93).

Data analysis was therefore continued on with testing of assumptions.


of 43 04 April 2016

Table 2: Overall participants score means and standard deviation per psychometric

scale measurement.

Scales Mean Std. Deviation N

Religious Faith (RF) 2.12 0.86 58

Conscientiousness (PC) 3.54 0.49 58

Paranormal Beliefs (RPBS) 1.86 0.49 58

Sample size required for analysis was calculated to be 66 (N≥ 50+[8*2]) for the

overall predictor model and 106 (N≥ 104+2) for individual predictors (Coolican,

2014). While the initial participant sample (n= 69) provided an ideal size for the

overall model analysis, after correction the final sample size was 58, below the

advised calculated minimum.

Visual investigation of the boxplot graph identified no outliers in the data, while the

histogram initially showed negative skewing of the data spread, however, the

variation in kerousis (height) suggested a more centralised spread (Appendix G &

H). Although visually ambiguous, data was deemed not have violated assumptions of

normality.

A singular scatterplot analysis showed even distribution of data and confirmed

homoscedascity, while the scatterplot matrix showed linear relationship between all

variable pairings and confirmed linearity (Appendix I). Collinearity Statistics

confirmed both predictor variables to be of high tolerance (RF= .94, PC= .94) and

initially suggested no issues with multicollinearity (Appendix K); however, the high

values (>.90) also indicated high measurement similarity between both scales.


of 43 04 April 2016

Pearson’s multivariate correlation was conducted on the overall score means of all

three psychometric scales (Table 2.). There was a weak significant relationship

shown between RF and PC (r= .26, p= .0265), and RF and RPBS (r= .22, p= .0495)

at a one-tail level, with both results indicative of positive correlations. No significant

relationships were found between any of the variables at the two-tail level (Appendix

J).

A standard multiple regression was then carried out with RF and PC score means

entered as predictors, and RPBS score means as the DV (Appendix K). There was

no significant overall model effect, with the combined predictors explaining only 6%

of the variance in RPBS score means, R2= 0.061, F(2,57)= 1.78, p= .18. Even after

controlling for other variables, no significant residual effect was observed in the

increase of RF scores (B= 0.11, t(57)= 1.40, p= .17) or PC scores (B= 0.12, t(57)

=0.87, p= .39).

Discussion

No significant correlative relationship was found between either of the predictor

variables or the dependent variable at the explorative level (2-tail), suggesting that

the first hypothesis was not supported by the results and therefore, accepting the

null. In contrast, the results have provided ambiguous interpretations when

determining if the second hypothesis has been partially supported. Although a weak

significant correlation was found for RF independently with PC and RPBS at the

specified directional level (1-tail), PC was not found to be significantly related to

either RF or PRBS and all the relationships between the three variables, whether


of 43 04 April 2016

significant or not, were found to be positively correlated. Therefore, the findings for

the second hypothesis are considered inconclusive.

If the results were momentarily considered not ambiguous, then the current study

would be assumed to be conflictive with other research (McCullough et al., 2003;

Simonian, 2011; Saroglou, 2002; Wain, 2007) that identified emotional stability and

personality traits as a strong predictive force in religiosity and paranormal beliefs. In

contrast, the results could also be interpreted as supporting the positive correlative

relationship found between religious and paranormal ideologies found in previous

studies (Areni & Chirumbolo, 2006; Clobert & Saroglou, 2015). However, the

ambiguity of the findings weakens any interpretations made and therefore, the

primary focus of this discussion must instead be on the limitations of the current

study.

A major limitation was noted in the small participant sample size, which was below

the calculated minimum required for multiple regression analysis (Coolican, 2014).

The ambiguity of the results could therefore be due to the reduced statistical power

caused by the limited participation sample, leaving the results prone to Type II errors

of assuming non-significant findings when significance was to be found. Potential

cause of the limited sample size might be related to the limited time for data

collection self-imposed by the study, as well the methodical approach of only utilising

personal social media and business contacts during the recruitment phrase. An ideal

approach may have been to implement an email-recruitment network specifically

designed for the research, as utilised in previous studies (Aarnio & Lindeman, 2007;

Lindeman & Aarnio, 2006)


of 43 04 April 2016

In addition, a larger sample size may have reduced the female majority bias, which

itself raises questions regarding the influence of gender differences on emotional

stability and how this additional factor may have impended the results (Aarnio &

Linderman, 2007; Mencken et al., 2008). Interestingly, though the sample group was

Caucasian majority and located within the UK, religious beliefs were evenly divided

between four ideology types (Western, Eastern, Alternative and Non-Belief). This

may explain the weak positive correlation between RF and RPBS, based on the

division caused by different religious attitudes towards paranormal beliefs (Shiah et

al., 2010). However, the question on belief only considered participants’ current

religious background and not the religiosity by which they were indoctrinated into

from childhood, which itself could factor on the overall results due to potential

confusion caused when participants were answering the RF questionnaire (Bader,

2012; Linderman & Aarnio, 2006; McCullough et al., 2003).

Final major factor that could have influenced the ambiguity of the results may be due

to the type of psychometric measurements used within the study. The current study

noted a dearth of literature on the use of the Conscientiousness subscale in previous

personality and religiosity / paranormal belief research (McCullough et al., 2003;

Saroglou, 2002). The presents findings could be an indication that measurements of

the Conscientious traits may provide only subtle variations in response scores which

limits identification of significant relationships to ideological concepts such as faith or

beliefs (Wain, 2007; Weeks et al., 2008).

Although an artificial test-run of the questionnaire had been implemented prior to

data collection, scale reliability had not been conducted, which may have identified

the aforementioned issues regarding the Conscientiousness subscale. This may also

explain the high rate of incomplete questionnaires, potentially occurring due to


of 43 04 April 2016

similarities between the RF and RPBS scales leading to boredom or fatigue.

Alternatively, items from the PC scale may have appeared too starkly different or

unrelated to the topic of the study, potentially causing confusing that could have led

to participants prematurely ending the questionnaire. There could have also been

issues with web-server crashing or connectivity issues, and numerous other

variables that may have been counted were the study to be conducted instead within

a laboratory setting (Coolican, 2014; Fricker, 2008).

In conclusion, although the current study could be considered a contrast to previous

research regarding factors of religiosity and personality on paranormal beliefs,

limited sample size and use of potentially conflicting scales led to ambiguous results,

which limits the available interpretations of the findings.


of 43 04 April 2016

References

Aarnio, K., & Lindeman, M. (2007). Religious people and paranormal believers: Alike

or different?. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(1), 1-9. doi:10.1027/1614-

0001.28.1.1

Areni, A., & Chirumbolo, A. (2006). Atteggiamenti e credenze nei riguardi del

fenomeni sovrannaturali e paranormali. = Attitudes and beliefs on supernatural

and paranormal phenomena. Rassegna Di Psicologia, 23(1), 47-67.

Bader, C. A. (2012). Countervailing forces: Religiosity and paranormal belief in

Italy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51(4), 705-720.

Baker, J. O., & Draper, S. (2010). Diverse supernatural portfolios: Certitude,

exclusivity, and the curvilinear relationship between religiosity and paranormal

beliefs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(3), 413-424.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01519.x

Cattell, R. B., & Warburton, F. W. (1961). A cross cultural comparison of patterns of

extraversion and anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 523-15.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1961.tb00762.x

Cattell, R. Z. (1952). Objective Personality Tests Investigating the Structure of

Altruism in Relation to Source Traits A, H, and L. Journal of Personality, 21(1),

103.

Clobert, M., & Saroglou, V. (2015). Religion, paranormal beliefs, and distrust in

science: Comparing East versus West. Archiv Für Religionspsychologie /

Archive for the Psychology of Religions, 37(2), 185-199.

doi:10.1163/15736121-12341302


of 43 04 April 2016

Coolican, H. (2014). Correlation and regression. In H. Coolican (Ed.), Research

methods and statistics in psychology (6th ed., pp. 520-569). Hove, East

Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Costa, P. J., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-

PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, D. H. Saklofske, G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews,

D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and

assessment, Vol 2: Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179-198).

Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

doi:10.4135/9781849200479.n9

Eysenck, H. J. (1993). Creativity and Personality: Suggestions for a

Theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 147.

Fricker, R. (2008). Sampling Methods for Web and E-mail Surveys. In N. Fielding,

R. Lee & G. Black (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods

(1st ed., pp. 195-217). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory

measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.

J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe

(Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: University Press.

Hergovich, A. (2003). Field dependence, suggestibility and belief in paranormal

phenomena. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(2), 195-209.

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00022-3

Keinan, G. (2002). The effects of stress and desire for control on superstitious

behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 102-108.

doi:10.1177/0146167202281009


of 43 04 April 2016

Lawrence, T. R., Roe, C. A., & Williams, C. (1997). Confirming the factor structure of

the Paranormal Beliefs Scale: Big orthogonal seven or oblique five?. Journal of

Parapsychology, 61(1), 13-31.

Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2006). Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and

correlates. European Journal of Personality, 20(7), 585-602.

doi:10.1002/per.608

Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the International

Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory

and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor

model. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1070-1084. doi:10.1037/pas0000004

McCullough, M. E., Tsang, J., & Brion, S. (2003). Personality traits in adolescence as

predictors of religiousness in early adulthood: Findings from the Terman

longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(8), 980-991.

doi:10.1177/0146167203253210

Mencken, F. C., Bader, C. D., & Stark, R. (2008). Conventional Christian beliefs and

experimentation with the paranormal. Review of Religious Research, 50(2),

194-205.

Plante, T. G., & Boccaccini, M. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Santa Clara

Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 45(6), 429-

437. doi:10.1007/BF02310643

Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic

review. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(1), 15-25.

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00233-6


of 43 04 April 2016

Shiah, Y., Tam, W. C., Wu, M., & Chang, F. (2010). Paranormal beliefs and

religiosity: Chinese version of the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale.

Psychological Reports, 107(2), 367-382. doi:10.2466/08.09.17.PR0.107.5.367-

382

Simonian, I. (2011). Paranormal belief, personality traits, and subjective well-being.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering,

71(9-B), 5836.

Smith, S. M., Smith, R., Smith, J., & Orgill, S. (2002). Qualitrics Survey Software

(version 2016) [Software]. Available from http://www.qualtrics.com/

Tobacyk, J. G. (1988). Paranormal Beliefs and the Barnum Effect. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 52(4), 737.

Wain, O. M. (2007). Executive functions in morality, religion, and paranormal beliefs.

International Journal of Neuroscience, 117(1), 135-146.

Weeks, M., Weeks, K. P., & Daniel, M. R. (2008). The implicit relationship between

religious and paranormal constructs. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 47(4), 599-611. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00429.x

Willard, A. K., & Norenzayan, A. (2013). Cognitive biases explain religious belief,

paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose. Cognition, 129(2), 379-391.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.016

Williams, E., Francis, L., & Lewis, C. A. (2009). Introducing the modified paranormal

belief scale: Distinguishing between classic paranormal beliefs, religious

paranormal beliefs and conventional religiosity among undergraduates in

Northern Ireland and Wales. Archiv Für Religionspsychologie / Archive for The


of 43 04 April 2016

Psychology of Religions, 31(3), 345-356.

doi:10.1163/008467209X12499946199605


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendices

Appendix A: Qualtrics Online Questionnaire

Title: An investigation into the roles of self-reported religious faith and conscientiousness in

paranormal beliefs

Q1 Information and Consent Form

The present study is part of a 2nd Year research project for our psychology with counselling

programme - Department of Psychology & Counselling, School of Health & Social Care, University of

Greenwich.

This is a study investigating the relationship between an individual’s religious faith and their belief in

the paranormal. If you consent to take part you will be asked to complete a series of multiple choice

questionnaires. These questionnaires are designed to measure both religious faith and paranormal

beliefs.

Questions will generally take the form of a statement or question concerning religious faith or

paranormal beliefs, and will be answered using a scale to determine the extent to which you agree

or disagree with the statement or question being posed. The whole task will take approximately 10

minutes. You may omit any questions that you do not wish to answer.

This project is not expected to involve physical risks or mental discomfort or harm. You are free to

withdraw yourself or your data from the study at any time you choose, with no consequence (see

below for details). Your participation is completely voluntary and does not involve payment. Your

forms will be kept securely and any identifiable data will be destroyed at the end of the study. All

data kept in electronic format will be kept on a password-accessed computer. The results of this

research may be published or reported, but your name will not be associated in any way with any

published results.

To maintain confidentiality of records you will invent a personal code (you will be asked to write this

down later), which will identify your data. You may withdraw your data anonymously by emailing

your personal code to me at the address below. Data can be withdrawn at any time up until

processing, on 16th March 2016.

Name of investigator: Jamie Collins and Giuseppe Paese. Contact details of investigator:

[email protected]; [email protected] Name and contact details of supervisors: Dr Damian Poulter

([email protected]); Dr Vicki Masters ([email protected]); Jessica Weaving

([email protected]).

Declaration: I have read and understood the above information. I have given been given a copy of

this information. I have had an opportunity to ask questions and I have received satisfactory

answers. I consent to participate in this study and I am 18+ years of age:

Yes (1)

No (2)

If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey


of 43 04 April 2016

Q2 Please entry a personal code below, consisting of 4 digits made up by you:

Q3 How would you describe your religious faith?


of 43 04 April 2016

Q4 Presented below are statements relating to religious faith - please select a response that

closely matches your agreement with each statement:

Strongly Disagree

(1) Disagree (2) Agree (3) Strongly Agree (4)

My religious faith is extremely

important to me (1)

I pray daily (2)

I look to my faith as a source of

inspiration (3)

I look to my faith as providing meaning and purpose in my

life (4)

I consider myself active in my faith

or place of worship (5)

My faith is an important part of

who I am as a person (6)

My relationship with whom I pray

to is extremely important to me

(7)

I enjoy being around others who share my faith (8)

I look to my faith as a source of comfort

(9)

My faith impacts many of my

decisions (10)


of 43 04 April 2016

Q5 The following pages contain phrases describing behaviour. Please use the rating scale next to

each phrase to describe how accurately these statements describes you. Describe yourself as you

generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see

yourself:

Very

inaccurate (1) Moderately

inaccurate (2)

Neither inaccurate or accurate (3)

Moderately accurate (4)

Very accurate (5)

Excel in what I do (1)

Like to tidy up (2)

Keep my promises (3)

Work hard (4)

Am always prepared (5)

Choose my words with

care (6)

Have little to contribute (7)

Leave my belongings around (8)

Do the opposite of

what is asked (9)

Do just enough work to get by

(10)


of 43 04 April 2016




yourself:

Very


inaccurate (2)



Very accurate (5)

Find it difficult to get down to

work (1)

Act without thinking (2)

Know how to get things done

(3)

Often forget to put things back in their proper

place (4)

Listern to my conscience (5)

Am not highly motivated to succeed (6)

Carry out my plans (7)

Do crazy things (8)

Handle tasks smoothly (9)

Want everything to be "just right"

(10)


of 43 04 April 2016




yourself:

Very


inaccurate (2)



Very accurate (5)

Pay my bills on time (1)

Turn plans into actions (2)

Start tasks right away (3)

Stick to my chosen path (4)

Don't see the consequences of things (5)

Am not bothered by disorder (6)

Misrepresent the facts (7)

Put little time and effort into

my work (8)

Postpone decisions (9)

Often make last-minute plans (10)


of 43 04 April 2016

Q6 How would you describe your paranormal beliefs?

Q7 Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. There are no

right or wrong answers and no trick questions. This is just a sample of your own beliefs and

attitudes:

Disagree (1) Uncertain (2) Agree (3)

Some individuals are able to levitate (lift)

objects through mental forces (1)

Black magic really exists (2)

Black cats bring bad luck (3)

Your mind or soul can leave your body and

travel (astral projection) (4)

The abominable snowman of Tibet exists

(5)

Astrology is a way to accurately predict the

future (6)

Psychokinesis (movement of objects

through physic powers) does exist (7)

Witches do exist (8)

If you break a mirror, you will have bad luck (9)

During altered states (e.g. sleep or trances)

the spirit can leave the body (10)

The Loch Ness monster of Scotland exists (11)


of 43 04 April 2016

Q7 Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. There are no

right or wrong answers and no trick questions. This is just a sample of your own beliefs and

attitudes:

Disagree (1) Uncertain (2) Agree (3)

The horoscope accurately tells a

person's future (1)

A person's thoughts can influence the movement of a physical object (2)

Through the use of formulas and

incantations, it is possible to cast spells on

people (3)

The number 13 is unlucky (4)

Reincarnation does occur (5)

There is life on other planets (6)

Some psychics can accurately predict the

future (7)

Mind reading is possible (8)

There are actual cases of witchcraft (9)

It is possible to communicate with the

dead (10)

Some people have an unexplained ability to accurately predict the

future (11)


of 43 04 April 2016

Q8 Finally, please answer these following set of questions:

Q8 What is your gender?

Female (0)

Male (1)

Do not wish to say (2)

Q8 What is your age?

Q8 How would you describe your ethnicity?

Q8 Which country do you live in / reside?


of 43 04 April 2016

Q9 Debriefing for: An investigation into the roles of self-reported religious faith and

conscientiousness in paranormal belief.

Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study. The research you have just

participated in is being used to investigate how the strength of an individual’s religious beliefs and

their level of conscientiousness affects their belief in the paranormal, as prior research into this topic

has provided mixed evidences.

You were asked to fill out three sets of questionnaires; the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith

Questionnaire (Plante & Boccaccini, 1997), the IPIP-NEO Full (300-Item) Scale, and the Revised

Paranormal Belief Scale (Tobacyk, 1988). This was in order to find out how strong your religious faith

was, whether you were of high or low conscientiousness, and how much you believed in the

paranormal. The scores for each questionnaire were compared to determine how each aspect

correlated to one another, and if there was a significant association between faith and personality in

relation to paranormal beliefs. Previous research has found that personality traits such as high

conscientiousness was a good predictor of religious belief and high emotional stability (McCullough,

Tsang and Brion, 2003). When compared with research that indicated to a negative correlation

between emotional stability and paranormal beliefs (Simonian, 2011), both studies suggest the same

correlative relationship may exist between high conscientiousness and paranormal beliefs, although

this association has yet to be investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test this

hypothesis.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. If taking part in this study has

affected how you feel about your religious faith or paranormal beliefs, then the following websites

are useful sources of local support and information in your area:

http://www.healthtalk.org/peoples-experiences/mental-health/mental-health-ethnic-minority-

experiences/role-faith-spirituality-religion ;

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/existential-therapy.html.

You can also talk to your G.P. or to the university counselling service if you are a University of

Greenwich student – Tel: 020 8331 9444 / 020 8331 7875 Email: [email protected]

The data analysis will be completed by the 23rd of March 2016 so any withdrawal requests must be

made before then. Remember that all information given in this study is kept securely and

confidentially and only myself and my supervisors (for marking purposes if deemed necessary) have

access to the completed questionnaires. Your questionnaire can only be identified by your personal

code word that is only known to you. So not only will your information not be revealed but also it

cannot be identified.

Please make a note of your personal code as you will require this if you need to get in contact with

us:

Name of investigator: Jamie Collins and Giuseppe Paese. Contact details of investigator:

[email protected]; [email protected]

Name and contact details of supervisors: Dr Damian Poulter ([email protected]); Dr Vicki

Masters ([email protected]); Jessica Weaving ([email protected]). Once again a big thank

you for taking the time to take part in this research.

I have read through the debriefing and wish to submit my responses. (1)

If I have read through the deb... Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendix B: Final Data Set

Faith Beliefs Gender Age Ethnicity Location RF_Mean PC_Mean RPBS_Mean

Catholicism Uncertain Female 19 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.60 3.67 1.95

Spiritualism Partial Believer Male 29 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.80 3.83 2.41

Agnostic Partial Believer Female 20 Mixed-Ethnicity UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 3.53 2.09

Spiritualism Full Believer Non-Disclosed 19 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.80 2.77 2.41

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Uncertain Male 36 Afro-Caribbean UK & Northen Ireland 3.00 3.93 2.14

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Full Believer Female 29 Asian UK & Northen Ireland 3.90 4.07 1.50

Non-Religious Uncertain Female 20 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.00 3.57 2.14

Paganism Uncertain Female 18 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.60 2.77 1.77

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Full Believer Female 36 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.90 3.70 2.09

Atheism Partial Believer Female 20 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.40 3.70 2.23

Catholicism Full Believer Female 43 Caucasian International 2.40 3.27 2.64

Catholicism Partial Believer Male 38 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.50 3.43 1.59

Agnostic Uncertain Female 19 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 3.97 1.55

Non-Religious Full Believer Female 39 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.00 3.83 2.14

Christianity Full Believer Female 36 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.50 3.63 1.73

Catholicism Partial Believer Male 63 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 3.00 3.57 2.36

Non-Religious Partial Believer Female 30 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.20 4.03 2.00

Non-Religious Full Believer Female 18 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 3.40 2.50

Non-Religious Non-Believer Male 61 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 3.80 1.09

Atheism Full Believer Female 35 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.00 3.33 2.36

Catholicism Non-Believer Female 20 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.30 2.87 1.09

Agnostic Partial Believer Female 49 Caucasian EU Regions 1.90 3.00 1.55

Atheism Non-Believer Female 19 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 2.77 1.73

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Non-Believer Female 19 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.20 2.67 1.36

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Full Believer Female 18 Mixed-Ethnicity UK & Northen Ireland 2.60 2.80 2.32


Catholicism Full Believer Male 32 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.00 3.40 2.14

Paganism Full Believer Female 45 Caucasian International 1.80 3.53 2.64

Spiritualism Full Believer Female 35 Caucasian International 2.80 3.83 2.45

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Full Believer Male 29 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.10 3.43 2.50

Spiritualism Partial Believer Female 22 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.10 3.80 1.23

Agnostic Partial Believer Female 35 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.30 3.97 2.45

Christianity Non-Believer Female 20 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 3.63 1.23


Christianity Partial Believer Female 33 Caucasian International 1.40 3.70 2.14

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Partial Believer Female 40 Caucasian International 3.90 3.90 2.64

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Partial Believer Female 54 Mixed-Ethnicity UK & Northen Ireland 2.67 3.83 2.14

Non-Religious Non-Believer Male 22 Mixed-Ethnicity UK & Northen Ireland 1.80 2.63 1.14

Christianity Non-Believer Female 57 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.70 4.23 1.27

Atheism Full Believer Female 33 Caucasian International 1.40 4.13 2.09

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Partial Believer Female 19 Middle-Eastern UK & Northen Ireland 2.90 2.80 1.00

Paganism Partial Believer Female 24 Caucasian International 2.80 3.63 2.36

Atheism Non-Believer Male 19 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 3.10 1.05

Christianity Partial Believer Female 20 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 3.40 4.03 2.32

Christianity Partial Believer Female 21 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.50 3.73 1.59

Non-Religious Full Believer Female 21 Mixed-Ethnicity UK & Northen Ireland 1.60 3.40 2.41

Buddhism Non-Believer Male 34 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.90 3.97 1.18

Catholicism Partial Believer Female 19 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.90 3.07 2.05

Non-Religious Non-Believer Female 37 Afro-Caribbean UK & Northen Ireland 1.10 4.30 1.18

Christianity Uncertain Female 58 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 2.00 3.73 1.64

Agnostic Non-Believer Female 50 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 3.87 1.32

Spiritualism Partial Believer Male 34 Afro-Caribbean UK & Northen Ireland 3.90 3.63 2.05

Non-Religious Non-Believer Female 21 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 1.00 2.40 1.05

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith Partial Believer Female 21 Asian UK & Northen Ireland 2.80 4.13 1.36

Catholicism Partial Believer Female 40 Caucasian International 2.20 4.30 1.82

Agnostic Uncertain Male 21 Asian UK & Northen Ireland 1.70 2.43 1.68

Christianity Non-Believer Male 26 Caucasian UK & Northen Ireland 3.20 3.10 1.23

Catholicism Full Believer Female 28 Caucasian International 2.70 3.73 1.91


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendix C: Reliability (Initial Sample Size) Scale: RF - N69

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 58 84.1

Excludeda 11 15.9

Total 69 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.963 10

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item

Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha

if Item Deleted

RFQ1 18.81 64.086 .795 .961

RFQ2 19.12 62.950 .876 .958

RFQ3 18.72 62.730 .889 .957

RFQ4 18.84 62.800 .880 .958

RFQ5 19.05 64.225 .826 .960

RFQ6 18.71 62.702 .839 .959

RFQ7 18.72 62.730 .842 .959

RFQ8 18.53 67.481 .649 .966

RFQ9 18.69 63.060 .873 .958

RFQ10 18.86 63.805 .870 .958

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

20.90 78.270 8.847 10


of 43 04 April 2016

Scale: PC - N69



.868 30 Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 59 85.5

Excludeda 10 14.5

Total 69 100.0


procedure.

Scale Statistics


106.19 213.189 14.601 30


Scale Mean if Item

Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha

if Item Deleted

Q5_1 _ C1 102.42 205.869 .293 .866

Q5_2 _ C2 102.93 195.168 .431 .863

Q5_3 _ C3 101.86 204.981 .397 .865

Q5_4 _ C4 102.15 198.442 .498 .862

Q5_5 _ C5 102.71 192.416 .722 .856

Q5_6 _ C6 102.61 197.621 .506 .861

Q5_7 _ C1 R 102.34 201.745 .335 .866

Q5_8 _ C2 R 103.29 197.760 .363 .865

Q5_9 _ C3 R 102.29 201.140 .409 .864

Q5_10 _ C4 R 102.75 191.469 .562 .859

Q5_11 _ C5 R 103.17 191.764 .595 .858

Q5_12 _ C6 R 103.03 199.068 .449 .863

Q5_13 _ C1 102.32 201.395 .493 .863

Q5_14 _ C2 R 103.20 194.372 .443 .863

Q5_15 _ C3 102.14 202.499 .368 .865

Q5_16 _ C4 R 102.63 200.583 .347 .865

Q5_17 _ C5 102.41 203.659 .438 .864

Q5_18 _ C6 R 103.31 202.940 .260 .868

Q5_19 _ C1 102.66 204.952 .334 .866

Q5_20 _ C2 102.46 210.390 .058 .872

Q5_21 _ C3 102.12 204.727 .287 .867

Q5_22 _ C4 102.47 206.323 .258 .867

Q5_23 _ C5 103.19 196.154 .444 .863

Q5_24 _ C6 102.71 203.243 .325 .866

Q5_25 _ C1 R 102.24 196.115 .559 .860

Q5_26 _ C2 R 102.66 206.228 .156 .871

Q5_27 _ C3 R 102.22 201.933 .347 .865

Q5_28 _ C4 R 102.37 195.996 .452 .863

Q5_29 _ C5 R 103.31 197.009 .436 .863

Q5_30 _ C6 R 103.44 197.630 .432 .863


of 43 04 April 2016

Scale: RPBS - N69


N %

Cases Valid 58 84.1

Excludeda 11 15.9

Total 69 100.0


procedure.



.931 22

Scale Statistics


40.93 118.241 10.874 22


Scale Mean if Item

Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha

if Item Deleted

Q5_1 _ PB 39.10 105.428 .683 .926

Q5_2 _ WC 38.88 105.196 .674 .926

Q5_3 _ SS 39.88 118.880 -.114 .934

Q5_4 _ PB 38.81 104.227 .756 .925

Q5_5 _ ANP 39.43 111.057 .449 .930

Q5_6 _ ANP 39.40 110.559 .504 .929

Q5_7 _ PB 38.95 106.331 .658 .927

Q5_8 _ WC 38.74 102.932 .769 .924

Q5_9 _ SS 39.50 114.289 .230 .933

Q5_10 _ PB 38.90 104.586 .757 .925

Q5_11 _ ANP 39.33 108.786 .570 .928

Q5_12 _ ANP 39.48 113.307 .341 .931

Q5_13 _ PB 39.00 105.368 .710 .926

Q5_14 _ WC 39.12 105.371 .740 .925

Q5_15 _ SS 39.72 116.905 .094 .934

Q5_16 _ PB 38.84 106.695 .659 .927

Q5_17 _ ANP 38.38 113.503 .365 .931

Q5_18 _ PB 38.79 105.290 .724 .925

Q5_19 _ PB 38.84 105.221 .711 .926

Q5_20 _ WC 38.91 104.887 .691 .926

Q5_21 _ PB 38.86 104.332 .775 .924

Q5_22 _ PB 38.67 104.856 .728 .925


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendix D: Reliability (Post Sample Size Correction) Scale: RF - N58


N %

Cases Valid 58 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 58 100.0


procedure.


Scale Mean if Item

Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha

if Item Deleted

RFQ1 19.00 62.386 .772 .957

RFQ2 19.36 61.358 .863 .953

RFQ3 18.93 61.118 .885 .952

RFQ4 19.05 61.138 .874 .953

RFQ5 19.29 62.667 .809 .955

RFQ6 18.91 61.098 .834 .954

RFQ7 18.98 61.491 .784 .956

RFQ8 18.74 65.949 .639 .961

RFQ9 18.90 61.463 .868 .953

RFQ10 19.07 62.136 .864 .953



.959 10

Scale Statistics


21.14 76.296 8.735 10


of 43 04 April 2016

Scale: PC - N58


Scale Mean if Item

Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha

if Item Deleted

Q5_1 _ C1 102.43 209.478 .293 .868

Q5_2 _ C2 102.95 198.576 .433 .865

Q5_3 _ C3 101.86 208.577 .398 .866

Q5_4 _ C4 102.14 201.910 .504 .863

Q5_5 _ C5 102.72 195.782 .724 .858

Q5_6 _ C6 102.62 201.082 .507 .863

Q5_7 _ C1 R 102.36 205.253 .340 .867

Q5_8 _ C2 R 103.33 201.136 .376 .867

Q5_9 _ C3 R 102.29 204.667 .409 .866

Q5_10 _ C4 R 102.72 194.800 .570 .861

Q5_11 _ C5 R 103.16 195.116 .600 .860

Q5_12 _ C6 R 103.03 202.560 .449 .865

Q5_13 _ C1 102.33 204.926 .493 .864

Q5_14 _ C2 R 103.22 197.756 .446 .865

Q5_15 _ C3 102.14 206.051 .368 .867

Q5_16 _ C4 R 102.62 204.099 .348 .867

Q5_17 _ C5 102.41 207.229 .438 .866

Q5_18 _ C6 R 103.31 206.498 .261 .870

Q5_19 _ C1 102.67 208.540 .335 .867

Q5_20 _ C2 102.47 214.078 .058 .874

Q5_21 _ C3 102.12 208.319 .287 .868

Q5_22 _ C4 102.47 209.937 .261 .869

Q5_23 _ C5 103.17 199.584 .447 .864

Q5_24 _ C6 102.69 206.779 .334 .867

Q5_25 _ C1 R 102.24 199.555 .559 .862

Q5_26 _ C2 R 102.67 209.838 .156 .873

Q5_27 _ C3 R 102.21 205.465 .350 .867

Q5_28 _ C4 R 102.36 199.428 .454 .864

Q5_29 _ C5 R 103.33 200.435 .440 .865

Q5_30 _ C6 R 103.45 201.094 .432 .865


N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 58 100.0


procedure.



.870 30

Scale Statistics


106.19 216.928 14.728 30


of 43 04 April 2016

Scale: RPBS – N58


N %


Excludeda 0 .0

Total 58 100.0


procedure.



.931 22

Scale Statistics


40.93 118.241 10.874 22


Scale Mean if Item

Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-

Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha

if Item Deleted

Q5_1 _ PB 39.10 105.428 .683 .926

Q5_2 _ WC 38.88 105.196 .674 .926

Q5_3 _ SS 39.88 118.880 -.114 .934

Q5_4 _ PB 38.81 104.227 .756 .925

Q5_5 _ ANP 39.43 111.057 .449 .930

Q5_6 _ ANP 39.40 110.559 .504 .929

Q5_7 _ PB 38.95 106.331 .658 .927

Q5_8 _ WC 38.74 102.932 .769 .924

Q5_9 _ SS 39.50 114.289 .230 .933

Q5_10 _ PB 38.90 104.586 .757 .925

Q5_11 _ ANP 39.33 108.786 .570 .928

Q5_12 _ ANP 39.48 113.307 .341 .931

Q5_13 _ PB 39.00 105.368 .710 .926

Q5_14 _ WC 39.12 105.371 .740 .925

Q5_15 _ SS 39.72 116.905 .094 .934

Q5_16 _ PB 38.84 106.695 .659 .927

Q5_17 _ ANP 38.38 113.503 .365 .931

Q5_18 _ PB 38.79 105.290 .724 .925

Q5_19 _ PB 38.84 105.221 .711 .926

Q5_20 _ WC 38.91 104.887 .691 .926

Q5_21 _ PB 38.86 104.332 .775 .924

Q5_22 _ PB 38.67 104.856 .728 .925


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendix E: Descriptives

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation

Age 58 18 63 31.07 12.836

Valid N (listwise) 58

Appendix F: Frequencies

Frequency Table

Faith

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Non-Religious 9 15.5 15.5 15.5

Christianity 10 17.2 17.2 32.8

Catholicism 9 15.5 15.5 48.3

Buddhism 1 1.7 1.7 50.0

Paganism 3 5.2 5.2 55.2

Spiritualism 5 8.6 8.6 63.8

Agnostic 6 10.3 10.3 74.1

Atheism 5 8.6 8.6 82.8

Other / Non-Disclosed Faith 10 17.2 17.2 100.0

Total 58 100.0 100.0

Beliefs


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Uncertain 7 12.1 12.1 12.1

Full Believer 18 31.0 31.0 43.1

Partial Believer 20 34.5 34.5 77.6

Non-Believer 13 22.4 22.4 100.0

Total 58 100.0 100.0

Statistics

Faith Beliefs Gender Ethnicity Location

N Valid 58 58 58 58 58

Missing 0 0 0 0 0


of 43 04 April 2016

Gender


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Female 44 75.9 75.9 75.9

Male 13 22.4 22.4 98.3

Non-Disclosed 1 1.7 1.7 100.0

Total 58 100.0 100.0

Ethnicity


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Caucasian 46 79.3 79.3 79.3

Afro-Caribbean 3 5.2 5.2 84.5

Asian 3 5.2 5.2 89.7

Middle-Eastern 1 1.7 1.7 91.4

Mixed-Ethnicity 5 8.6 8.6 100.0

Total 58 100.0 100.0

Location


Cumulative

Percent

Valid UK & Northen Ireland 48 82.8 82.8 82.8

EU Regions 1 1.7 1.7 84.5

International 9 15.5 15.5 100.0

Total 58 100.0 100.0


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendix G: Explore (Boxplot)


Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

RF_Mean 58 100.0% 0 0.0% 58 100.0%

PC_Mean 58 100.0% 0 0.0% 58 100.0%

RPBS_Mean 58 100.0% 0 0.0% 58 100.0%


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendix H: Charts (Histogram & Scatterplot)


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendix I: Graph (Scatterplot Matrix)


of 43 04 April 2016

Appendix J: Correlations

Appendix K: Regression

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Entered

Variables

Removed Method

1 PC_Mean,

RF_Meanb . Enter

a. Dependent Variable: RPBS_Mean

b. All requested variables entered.

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

RF_Mean 2.1184 .87571 58

PC_Mean 3.5397 .49095 58

RPBS_Mean 1.8605 .49427 58

Correlations

RF_Mean PC_Mean RPBS_Mean

RF_Mean Pearson Correlation 1 .255 .219

Sig. (2-tailed) .053 .099

N 58 58 58

PC_Mean Pearson Correlation .255 1 .165

Sig. (2-tailed) .053 .216

N 58 58 58

RPBS_Mean Pearson Correlation .219 .165 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .099 .216

N 58 58 58

Model Summaryb

Model R

R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change

1 .246a .061 .026 .48767 .061 1.776 2 55 .179

a. Predictors: (Constant), PC_Mean, RF_Mean

b. Dependent Variable: RPBS_Mean


of 43 04 April 2016

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .845 2 .422 1.776 .179b

Residual 13.080 55 .238

Total 13.925 57


b. Predictors: (Constant), PC_Mean, RF_Mean

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 1.218 .472 2.582 .013

RF_Mean .107 .076 .189 1.399 .168 .935 1.069

PC_Mean .118 .136 .117 .865 .391 .935 1.069


Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index

Variance Proportions

(Constant) RF_Mean PC_Mean

1 1 2.898 1.000 .00 .02 .00

2 .093 5.575 .04 .97 .03

3 .009 17.712 .96 .01 .97


Residuals Statisticsa

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Predicted Value 1.6071 2.1154 1.8605 .12173 58

Residual -.85687 .81058 .00000 .47904 58

Std. Predicted Value -2.082 2.094 .000 1.000 58

Std. Residual -1.757 1.662 .000 .982 58


independent lab study final

Documents