Examining the Relationship between Religiosity and Delay-of-Gratification: Differentiating between Organizational and Personal Religiosity A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Adam Carlitz December 2018 © 2018 Adam Carlitz. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Examining the Relationship between Religiosity and Delay-of-Gratification: Differentiating between Organizational and Personal Religiosity by ADAM CARLITZ has been approved for the Department of Psychology and the College of Arts and Sciences by Kimberly Rios and Ronaldo Vigo Associate Professors of Psychology Joseph Shields Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT CARLITZ, ADAM., M.S., December 2018, Psychology Examining the Relationship between Religiosity and Delay-of-Gratification: Differentiating between Organizational and Personal Religiosity Directors of Thesis: Kimberly Rios and Ronaldo Vigo Religiosity is positively related to self-regulation, though more research is needed to understand the nature of this relationship. For example, relatively few studies have examined the link between religiosity and delay-of-gratification (i.e., resisting immediate temptation in favor of some objectively larger, delayed reward). Most of the limited research on this topic has conceptualized and operationalized religiosity as though it were a unidimensional construct. We review literature that, instead, suggests religiosity be treated as a two-dimensional construct – consisting of organizational (i.e., religious practice/community) and personal religiosity (i.e., religious belief) dimensions. Personal religiosity elements are more strongly associated with asceticism than are organizational religiosity elements. Therefore, we hypothesized that personal religiosity would lead to greater delay-of-gratification than would organizational religiosity. Furthermore, we hypothesized that cognitive construal level, rational-experiential processing, and/or deontological thinking would mediate this effect. Consistent with the former hypothesis, experimental results indicated that activating personal, but not organizational, religiosity concepts increased delay-of-gratification. We did not find support for the latter hypothesis. We discuss the implications of these findings and future research directions. 4 DEDICATION For Mom, Dad, Jared, Phil, and Lexi. 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I could not have done this without Drs. Kimberly Rios and Ronaldo Vigo’s help and support. You both make me a better scientist, researcher, and person each day. Thank you both so much! I would also like to thank Dr. Nicholas Allan for his help with data analysis. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 8 List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 10 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 12 Self-Regulation, Delay-of-Gratification, and Real-World Outcomes ........................ 12 Measuring Delay-of-Gratification via Delay Discounting ......................................... 13 The Relationship between Religiosity and Delay-of-Gratification ............................ 15 Religiosity as a Two-Dimensional Construct ............................................................. 19 The Effects of Organizational vs. Personal Religiosity on Delay-of-Gratification .... 25 Cognitive Processing Systems as Possible Mediators ................................................ 27 Cognitive processing systems and delay-of-gratification. .................................... 27 Cognitive construal level and two-dimensional religiosity. ................................. 29 Deontological Thinking as a Possible Mediator ......................................................... 31 Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 35 Methods............................................................................................................................. 37 Participants and Design ............................................................................................... 37 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 37 Materials (see Appendix for all study materials) ........................................................ 38 Experimental manipulation questionnaire. ........................................................... 38 Delay discounting. ................................................................................................ 39 Construal level. ..................................................................................................... 39 Deontological thinking.......................................................................................... 40 Rational vs. experiential thinking. ........................................................................ 40 Organizational and personal religiosity. ............................................................... 41 Data Preparation .......................................................................................................... 41 Results ............................................................................................................................... 43 Participants .................................................................................................................. 43 7 Main Analyses ............................................................................................................ 44 Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c..................................................................................... 44 Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c..................................................................................... 46 Exploratory Analyses .................................................................................................. 47 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 55 Main Analyses ............................................................................................................ 55 Exploratory Analyses .................................................................................................. 58 Limitations and Future Directions .............................................................................. 59 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 63 References ......................................................................................................................... 65 Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 83 Experimental Manipulation ........................................................................................ 83 Monetary-Choice Questionnaire (MCQ-27) ............................................................... 84 Behavior Identification Form (BIF) ............................................................................ 85 Abbreviated Morality Founded on Divine Authority (A-MFDA) .............................. 88 Rational-Experiential Inventory .................................................................................. 89 Religious Practice ....................................................................................................... 91 Demographics Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 94 8 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Demographics ..................................................................................................... 44 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Variables ................................................... 45 Table 3 Zero-Order Correlations for Measurement Variables ......................................... 47 Table 4 Results of Mediation Analysis ............................................................................ 47 Table 5 Religiosity Items for Exploratory Analyses ........................................................ 49 Table 6 Zero-Order Inter-item Correlations for Religiosity Items .................................. 51 Table 7 Exploratory Analyses: Nested Model Comparisons ........................................... 51 Table 8 Standardized Path Estimates for Three-Factor Model ........................................ 54 9 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Three-factor model of organizational and personal religiosity on DD ............. 52 10 INTRODUCTION People who are more religious are generally better at regulating their